U.S. Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Power in Birthright Citizenship Case

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Power in Birthright Citizenship Case

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, curbed the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions. This decision, tied to President Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, strengthens executive power and limits judicial oversight.

The case, Trump v. CASA, stemmed from President Trump’s executive order signed on January 20, 2025, his first day in his second term, aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas.

The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born after February 19, 2025, if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The 14th Amendment (1868) states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This has been interpreted for over 125 years to grant automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status, as affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Trump’s administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, a view described as novel and contrary to established precedent.

Three federal district court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington (Seattle) issued nationwide (universal) injunctions blocking Trump’s order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” in at least one case.

These injunctions, issued in response to lawsuits from 22 Democratic-led states, immigrant advocacy groups (e.g., CASA, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project), and seven individuals, including pregnant women, prevented enforcement of the order nationwide.

Federal appeals courts in California, Massachusetts, and Virginia refused to lift these injunctions, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court in March 2025.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that nationwide

injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

The majority granted the Trump administration’s request to partially stay the injunctions, but only to the extent that they are “broader than necessary to provide complete relief” to plaintiffs with standing to sue (e.g., the 22 states, advocacy groups, and individuals).

The ruling directs lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions, ensuring relief is limited to plaintiffs, though it left open the possibility of broader relief through class-action lawsuits or if states demonstrate a need for nationwide protection.

The decision does not take effect for 30 days (until July 27, 2025), allowing time for further legal challenges or class-action filings.

The Court did not address the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, focusing solely on the procedural issue of nationwide injunctions.

The ruling limits the ability of single district court judges to block executive actions nationwide, a tool used frequently against both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent years.

Justice Barrett noted that nationwide injunctions are a recent phenomenon, “conspicuously nonexistent for most of our nation’s history,” and argued that courts should not exceed their authority to check the executive branch.

The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, arguing the ruling undermines the judiciary’s role in checking unconstitutional executive actions.

Justice Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, called the decision a “travesty for the rule of law,” warning it allows the executive to enforce “unquestionably unconstitutional policies” against those who haven’t sued. She argued the order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents and could create chaos, potentially rendering thousands of children stateless.

Justice Kagan expressed concern that without nationwide injunctions, an “untold number of people” could lose citizenship rights despite clear precedent, as the government could avoid Supreme Court review by winning in some jurisdictions.

Justice Jackson criticized the ruling as permitting an “imperial judiciary” narrative, arguing it weakens judicial oversight and creates a “catch me if you can” justice system.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional, asserting that only the Supreme Court should rule on nationwide policy enforcement.

Sauer claimed the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors, though he acknowledged the legal arguments were “novel” and “sensitive.”

The administration argued that the 40 nationwide injunctions issued since Trump’s second term began (35 from five judicial districts) reflect judicial overreach.

Lawyers for the 22 states and advocacy groups argued that nationwide injunctions are necessary to prevent chaos, as a patchwork system would result in inconsistent citizenship rules across states (e.g., a child born in a plaintiff state might be a citizen, but not in others). They warned that Trump’s order could affect over 150,000 newborns annually and violate the 14th Amendment and precedents like United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Immigrant advocacy groups, such as CASA, refiled lawsuits as class actions in Maryland and New Hampshire to seek broader protections for pregnant noncitizens and their children.

Trump called the ruling a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law,” claiming it prevents “rogue judges” from blocking his policies. He posted on Truth Social, calling it a “GIANT WIN” and reiterating his view that birthright citizenship was not meant for “people taking vacations” or “drug cartels.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated the ruling allows the administration to move forward with policies without broad injunctions, though the merits of the birthright citizenship order remain unlitigated.

Immigrant advocates, like George Escobar of CASA, expressed confidence in continued legal challenges, emphasizing the order’s unconstitutionality and the need to protect all affected families.

Legal experts, such as Samuel Bray and Margo Schlanger, noted the ruling resets the judiciary-executive balance but leaves room for class-action lawsuits or state-specific injunctions, though further appeals are likely.

The ruling allows Trump’s order to potentially take effect in 28 states not involved in the lawsuits after July 27, 2025, unless lower courts issue new class-action or tailored injunctions.

Critics warn of a potential “patchwork” system, where citizenship could vary by state, causing confusion for hospitals, families, and federal agencies.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised practical concerns during oral arguments on May 15, 2025, asking how hospitals would handle newborns under the policy, highlighting implementation challenges.