In a landmark decision on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that federal courts do not hold the authority to impose nationwide injunctions against executive orders, in this case, concerning a 2025 directive on birthright citizenship issued by the Trump administration. The 6–3 ruling did not address the constitutionality of the executive order itself but concentrated on the extent of judicial authority to block federal policies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, asserted that universal injunctions likely go beyond what Congress has authorized for the federal courts. This decision prompts a significant recalibration of judicial reach, directing lower courts to reassess their injunctions and adhere to principles of equity, limiting relief to those directly affected.
The Supreme Court's decision has temporarily curtailed the nationwide injunctions previously issued by three lower federal courts, which had prohibited the Trump administration from implementing the executive order across the United States. However, the policy's enforcement remains suspended for an additional 30 days to allow for further legal actions and possible challenges at the lower court level.
President Trump's controversial executive order, signed on his inauguration day, posits that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders are not automatically entitled to citizenship, reigniting a legal debate over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While the Supreme Court's ruling does not address this interpretation, it significantly weakens district courts' capacity to halt federal policies on a national scale—a practice that has been a point of contention, particularly among conservatives.
The Trump administration had explicitly requested the Supreme Court to step in and restrict the use of sweeping injunctions, which it argued were excessively broad and disruptive. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, contended that constraining courts' ability to issue broad injunctive relief disregards fundamental equity principles and diminishes established judicial tools for constitutional disputes.
The 14th Amendment's clause guaranteeing citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of their parents' immigration status, remains unaffected by the ruling. Litigation continues as immigrant advocacy groups and 22 states challenge Trump's order, claiming it contradicts over a century of Supreme Court precedent.
In the wake of this decision, President Trump expressed his approval on Truth Social, labeling it a "giant win." He maintains that the 14th Amendment was "only meant to give citizenship to babies of slaves" and criticizes what he perceives as an exploitation of the system.
The case is far from closed, as the lower courts must now reevaluate the matter following the Supreme Court's narrowed definition of injunctive authority. The outcome of these proceedings could have far-reaching implications for executive power and the judicial system's role in checking it.
