WASHINGTON D.C.—The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) sided with the Trump administration today, in a 6-3 ruling, that would limit the ability of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, effectively allowing Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country.
“It was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about,” said Trump during a Press Conference Friday just an hour after the Supreme Court’s decision. “I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very, big, and complex, problem and they’ve made it very simple.”
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of soil”), grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as stated in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law originated as a rebuke to Dred Scott v. Sanford which affirmed the legality of slavery and denied Black Americans citizenship.
On President Trump’s first day of office, he signed a slew of executive orders, including one that sought to limit birthright citizenship by denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants or hold temporary legal status — effectively redefining the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Trump argued that birthright citizenship has been used by people “scamming the system,” he said Friday, where people from overseas could enter the United States, have a child, and by virtue of birthright citizenship that child would be an American citizen regardless of their parent’s citizenship, loyalty, or even if the child remained in the United States at all throughout their life.
This executive order, however, has been challenged by State Attorney Generals, individuals, and organizations arguing that it was unconstitutional. Trump called these Attorney Generals “radical leftists” who tried to “overturn the powers of the President.”
Leading up to the decision Friday, the court heard oral arguments on May 15, 2025, addressing the legality of Trump’s executive order. These arguments primarily focused on procedural issues, specifically whether federal district court judges could issue nationwide injunctions to block administration’s policies.
Two of the three dissenting votes Friday, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concerns that Trump’s executive order violates established Supreme Court precedent, citing the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Majority justices, on the other hand, namely Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett (who authored the decision), questioned its practicality; how hospitals would handle newborns under the new policy, for example. Though they were skeptical of nationwide injunctions they did not explicitly endorse overturning birthright citizenship.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Friday’s decision stating that the injunctions by district courts were disproportionately issued by five liberal-leaning districts out of 94, which have been weaponized to block President Trump’s policies. She argued that the Supreme Court’s Ruling is a check on “rogue judges” and an “imperial judiciary,” ensuring that courts cannot overstep their authority to broadly halt executive branch actions.
“These injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other issues,” said A.G. Bondi during Friday’s presser with President Trump. “The judges have tried to seize the executive branch’s power, and they cannot do that no [any] longer.”
The court’s ruling Friday has much broader implications for existing and future injunctions beyond the birthright citizenship case, however. The decision applies retroactively and prospectively to other nationwide injunctions that have challenged Trump’s administrative policies including, but not limited to, immigration-related injunctions, healthcare and reproductive rights, environmental regulations, education and civil rights, and other executive actions such as labor rights and attempts to block Trump’s trade tariffs.
During Trump’s first term nationwide, injunctions blocked policies like the “Remain in Mexico” program which halted asylum for those crossing the southern border. Now immigration orders (such as mass deportation plans) are now vulnerable.
In 2023, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, an abortion medication. Now similar injunctions against federal healthcare policies (for example contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act) are now at risk.
Earlier this year a nationwide injunction blocked a Tennessee law banning medical care for transgender minors. Friday’s ruling now would allow states to enforce such bans while litigation continues in other regions where challenges exist.
Nationwide injunctions have also historically been used to block Trump’s environmental regulations, such as weaking EPA emission standards.
Overall, the SCOTUS’ ruling modifies the judiciary’s role in challenging executive power. Though the number of existing nationwide injunctions that could be impacted is unclear at this time—the data on existing injunctions is not comprehensively centralized—there were 64 injunctions made against Trump’s policies in his first term. Now future challenges against Trump’s, more than 150, executive orders will face stricter hurdles.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is disappointing on many levels. But importantly, this morning’s order does not dispute the issue we handily won in the trial court — that President Trump’s attempt to strip birthright citizenship is unlawful and wrong,” said Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown. “The justices also confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties. In the case led by Washington state, the trial judge already ruled that nationwide relief is necessary to protect Washington and its co-plaintiffs from the harms from the executive order. We continue to believe that President Trump’s unconstitutional and cruel order must be stopped across the country to guarantee protection for Washington and its residents.”
According to Democracy Docket, “The ruling may lead to an increase in court cases throughout the country as people seek the same relief in each circuit court.”
The Supreme Court’s decision now falls on individual plaintiffs that file a suit, not the nation at large. The ruling would still allow for broader relief through class action lawsuits which SCOTUS has also limited.
The Court’s ruling specifically on President Trump’s executive order limiting of birthright citizenship is expected to be decided in October of this year.
What Attorneys Generals from Around the Country are Saying on SCOTUS Ruling
Following SCOTUS’ decision, Democratic-led states attorneys general from Washington, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut held a media availability on Friday to address implications for their ongoing birthright citizenship lawsuit against Trump’s executive order. They all expressed disappointment, arguing that the ruling undermines the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship and weakens judicial oversight of executive actions.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell argued the historical and constitutional foundation of birthright citizenship.
“Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment,” Campbell said. “For more than a century, the 14th Amendment has defined birthright citizenship as a right, not a privilege, that belongs to every child born on American soil, no matter the parent’s immigration status or what state they were born in.” She expressed frustration that the Court did not uphold nationwide injunctions, noting, “We are deeply disappointed that the court did not decide today that a nationwide injunction is warranted so that no matter where in the United States a baby is born, that baby will continue to be a citizen.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the ruling as a “mixed bag” but remained optimistic about securing relief in lower courts.
“Birthright citizenship stands for now,” Bonta said. “The Supreme Court recognized that our injunction may be justified if its nationwide scope is necessary to afford the states complete relief.” He cautioned against the risks of uneven enforcement, stating, “A patchwork of state injunctions where birthright citizenship stands for some states but not others would inevitably create administrative chaos, spark widespread confusion, and spur questions we don’t have the answers to.”
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong highlighted the personal and societal stakes, drawing on his family’s immigrant experience.
“My parents knew when I was born that I was an American citizen. They had that certainty,” Tong said. “That’s what this means for American families, not just in our states, but in every state. They need that certainty that the 14th Amendment guarantees so that they can build a life for themselves in this country and for their children.”
He warned of the uncertainty families face if the policy takes effect unevenly, asking, “What if a pregnant woman in Connecticut goes to Texas, goes to Pennsylvania, goes to Louisiana, goes to Utah and has the baby there? Then what happens?”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin underscored the critical role of state attorneys general in challenging the executive order.
“One thing the Supreme Court said quite clearly today is state attorneys general have never been more important,” Platkin said. “This case that we all filed was filed the very next morning after this unconstitutional order was signed. We were prepared. We knew this would be a fight, but it’s a fight worth having.”
He affirmed the coalition’s resolve to defending the Fourteenth Amendment, stating, “We will not stop fighting for the people in our states and the people of this country.”
In contrast, conservative Florida Attorney General Jame Uthmeier, representing a state supportive of Trump’s immigration agenda, praised the decision’s broader implications.
“This is what our country needed,” Uthmeier wrote on X. “Taking away nationwide power from rogue district courts is a huge win for the rule of law and the American people.”
President Trump Holds a Press Briefing, June 27, 2025
Author: Kienan Briscoe
