Trump Scores Procedural Victory Without Settling Birthright Citizenship
Washington, D.C. – June 27, 2025
In a significant 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has notably restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions.
This marks a crucial procedural win for President Trump as he seeks to contest birthright citizenship.
What The Court Said
Authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the majority opinion stated that broad injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted” to federal courts.
The Court instructed lower courts to limit injunctions so they only affect the plaintiffs involved in a case, rather than applying them nationwide.
Importantly, the Court did not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, leaving that discussion for future cases.
Key Statements from the Bench :
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated :
“To alter the meaning of the 14th Amendment would require constitutional amendment, not judicial activism. The rule of law stands firm: birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, warned:
“This ruling fails to address the modern complexities of illegal immigration and its impact on national sovereignty.”
Background and next steps 🪜
Trump’s Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was issued on January 20, 2025.
This order aims to put an end to automatic citizenship for children born to parents who are undocumented or hold temporary status.
In response, multiple federal courts located in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions that prevent the enforcement of this order until a more thorough review can take place.
The Supreme Court has upheld these injunctions, but it has limited their protective scope to the current plaintiffs only. This means that Trump’s administration can still seek targeted enforcement in states where there are no ongoing lawsuits.
The view from the bench :
Majority (Barrett): Nationwide injunctions exceed Congress’s intent and judicial power .
Dissenting Justices (Sotomayor, Jackson): Warned that restricting injunctive reach undermines national uniformity and judicial checks on executive power .
POLITICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The Trump administration is celebrating this as a major win, framing it as a shift in the balance of power within the federal court system—leaning more towards executive authority and away from broad judicial restrictions.
On the flip side, immigrant rights advocates and state attorneys general argue that this ruling creates a haphazard enforcement of immigration and citizenship laws, which could lead to inconsistent applications across different areas in the U.S.
Looking ahead, the conflict surrounding the 14th Amendment is still up in the air. The Supreme Court will surely have to take another look at the constitutional issues as lower courts continue to issue more limited territorial injunctions.
Legal Loophole?” — Could This Ruling Encourage Executive Overreach in Other Areas Too?
Legal experts are concerned that by restricting nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court has inadvertently cleared the way for future presidents — regardless of their political affiliation — to issue sweeping executive orders without facing immediate nationwide legal challenges.
The change could have ramifications that go far beyond just immigration, affecting areas like climate policy, tech regulation, reproductive rights, and more.
⚠️ This decision sets a precedent that could reshape how quickly executive power can be checked—raising concerns among both conservative and liberal scholars alike.