In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold President Donald Trump's executive order that redefines birthright citizenship criteria and to limit the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling, which emerged from the case Trump v. CASA, resulted in a 6-3 vote, marking a significant moment in the ongoing debate over immigration and the judiciary's role in policy enforcement.
The controversy began when President Trump issued an executive order stating that as of February 19, children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented or not U.S. citizens would not be granted citizenship automatically under the 14th Amendment. This order directly challenged the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
New York Attorney General Letitia James promptly filed a lawsuit against the administration's order, arguing that it would negatively impact New York's Child Health Plus program by reducing federal funding. The program had previously covered children now potentially excluded from citizenship. James contended that every child born on U.S. soil has historically been recognized as a citizen, a principle she described as "the law of the land for more than a century."
The Supreme Court, however, did not address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself but instead focused on the scope of judicial authority. The majority opinion held that federal district judges do not have the power to impose nationwide injunctions, which have been a tool to halt policies from taking effect across the entire country.
This decision allows Trump's executive order to stand, except for the individuals directly involved in the lawsuit, unless it is challenged in separate cases. The Trump administration had argued that nationwide injunctions were beyond what Congress intended for the judiciary, suggesting that remedies should be confined to the parties involved in the suit.
The court's decision has been met with a mix of support and criticism. Attorney General James described it as a "profound and disappointing setback" for immigrant families and those who seek constitutional protection from the courts. She also hinted at a continued legal battle, stating that her office, along with other attorneys general, would persist in defending constitutional values.
Meanwhile, James herself is under scrutiny as the FBI investigates potential mortgage fraud related to her 2023 home purchase in Virginia. Allegations suggest she may have misrepresented her residency to obtain favorable loan terms. Amid this investigation, the New York State Assembly included language in the state budget that could allow individuals to claim taxpayer-funded compensation if they face "discriminatory or retaliatory" federal charges, a provision believed to be crafted with James in mind.
As the dust settles on this Supreme Court decision, the question remains whether James will maintain her legal efforts on birthright citizenship. The outcome of the federal inquiry into her actions may play a crucial role in determining her next steps.
