The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a procedural but significant win for the Trump administration on Friday, ruling 6–3 that federal courts exceeded their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against a 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship.
The ruling did not determine the constitutionality of the order but focused narrowly on the reach of judicial blocks.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, stating that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
The decision directs lower courts to re-evaluate their injunctions and apply principles of equity, limiting relief only to plaintiffs with standing.
The justices granted partial relief to the administration by limiting the scope of those injunctions.
The Supreme Court’s decision puts a temporary hold on the sweeping nationwide injunctions previously issued by three lower federal courts, which had barred the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order anywhere in the United States.
However, they also ruled that implementation of the policy itself must remain on hold for an additional 30 days, allowing time for further legal proceedings and potential challenges in the lower courts.
The case stems from President Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office, which asserts that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders are not entitled to automatic citizenship.
The order reignited a longstanding legal debate over the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Although the Court did not rule on whether the executive order violates the Constitution, the decision weakens the ability of district courts to halt federal policies nationwide, a practice long criticized by conservatives, according to NPR.
The Trump administration had specifically asked the Court to intervene and limit the use of such injunctions, which it described as overly broad and disruptive to governance.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She wrote that limiting courts’ ability to issue broad injunctive relief “disregards basic principles of equity” and undermines established judicial tools used in constitutional disputes.
The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
That clause has long been interpreted to grant automatic citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The Court’s ruling does not alter that precedent.
Litigation is ongoing, with immigrant advocacy groups and 22 states challenging Trump’s directive.
They argue that the executive order contradicts Supreme Court precedent dating back over a century.
In response to these lawsuits, judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issued broad injunctions blocking enforcement.
President Trump welcomed the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “giant win.”
He accused opponents of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment, writing that it was “only meant to give citizenship to babies of slaves (same year!)” and criticized what he described as exploitation of the system.
The decision does not greenlight Trump’s policy but marks a major shift in judicial power, especially regarding how courts can respond to executive actions.
The lower courts must now reexamine the case in accordance with the Supreme Court’s narrowed definition of injunctive authority.
WATCH:
