WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday handed a major win to the Trump administration by allowing it to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship.
In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued. That means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not.
The ruling immediately sparked a response from plaintiffs who have sued to block the executive order, with their lawyers vowing to continue the legal fight.
It has long been widely accepted, including by legal scholars on left and right, that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States.
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!” Trump said in a Truth Social post shortly after the ruling.
In remarks to reporters at the White House, the president called the ruling “an amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about,” adding that the court “delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law, in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.”
Asked what he would say to people who fear the decision will concentrate power in presidency, Trump said, “This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it’s all about, and this is really the opposite of that.”
The court was divided on ideological lines on the issue, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.
“When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary.”
Lower courts, she added “shall move expeditiously” to figure out how broad the injunctions can be.
The court also said that the administration can continue working administratively on how the policy would be implemented.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench in the courtroom, saying the ruling was a “travesty for the rule of the law” and an “open invitation to bypass the constitution.”
Federal courts “will be hamstrung” when it comes to nationwide injunctions but she urged potential plaintiffs to immediately file class action lawsuits, a legal avenue the court left open.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
The policy remains blocked for now in one additional state, New Hampshire, as a result of a separate lawsuit that is not before the Supreme Court.
In light of the ruling, the proposal can potentially move forward nationwide, although individual plaintiffs could still file their own lawsuits in those states and the current challengers can still move to reinstate injunctions that are less broad in scope. The court said the executive order would technically go into effect in 30 days.
“Even without a universal injunction, we will continue to litigate this case to ensure that every child born in the United States receives the citizenship that the 14th Amendment promises them, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.” said William Powell, one of the lawyers representing challengers in Maryland.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is also involved in the litigation, calling the ruling “troubling but limited,” noting that lower courts have time to act before the 30-day deadline.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, whose state challenged the plan, said he was confident the executive order would never go into effect.
“And in the meantime, our fight continues,” he added.
The decision does not address the legal merits of the plan, but only whether judges had the authority to put it on hold across the entire country. President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies have been harshly critical of judges who have blocked aspects of his agenda, although it is not a new phenomenon for courts to impose nationwide injunctions.
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Based on historical practice, the only exception is people who are the children of diplomats.
Trump wants to adopt a completely new meaning of the language that would confer citizenship only on those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office in January, was immediately challenged, and every court that has ruled on the proposal so far has blocked it. At issue at the Supreme Court were cases filed in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
The Trump plan has the backing of 21 other states.
The administration has complained bitterly as judges have issued nationwide injunctions in response to Trump’s bold and aggressive use of executive power to implement his contentious agenda, which has included ramping up deportations, downsizing federal agencies, targeting law firms and universities, and firing thousands of federal employees.
Justice Department officials say there have been dozens such rulings and have described them as being an unconstitutional attack on the president’s authority. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have also had their agenda’s threatened by nationwide injunctions, although they have become more commonplace in recent years.
