Supreme Court Curbs Judges in Birthright Case as Trump Touts Win

A sharply divided US Supreme Court limited the power of judges to block government policies nationwide but left unresolved a fight over President Donald Trump’s restrictions on automatic birthright citizenship.

The 6-3 ruling Friday said Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship at a minimum won’t take effect for 30 days. The justices returned three cases to the lower courts to consider whether to keep the rules on hold for longer — at least in part of the country if not the whole nation.

Trump hailed the decision as a “monumental victory.” By curbing so-called nationwide injunctions, the ruling could help Trump fend off other challenges to his ambitious agenda. Trump and his allies argued that a single judge generally shouldn’t have the power to block a federal government policy across the country.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court’s conservative majority. “They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”

The court’s three liberals blasted the decision in dissent.

“With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the court gives way.”

As the cases go back before lower court judges, the justices said the administration in the meantime could start planning for the policy, including issuing public guidance about how it will work.

Trump called the ruling “a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.” He said the administration would move to get blocks lifted on a number of his policies that have been put on hold by federal courts.

“Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined in a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship ending, sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people,” he told reporters at the White House.

The states challenging Trump’s executive order vowed to continue the fight. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said in a statement that Friday’s decision leaves open the possibility of orders with nationwide effect “to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm.”

“We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court, particularly because the executive order will not take immediate effect, to show that the president’s approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the states,” Platkin said. “We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts.”

14th Amendment

Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order would jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. Trump would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder, meaning that even the newborn children of people on temporary visas wouldn’t become Americans.

The administration didn’t ask the court to directly consider the constitutionality of the executive order, focusing instead on nationwide injunctions — a practice that has roiled presidents from both parties over the years. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of hearing oral arguments on the emergency requests on May 15.

The executive order is being challenged by immigrant-rights organizations, affected individuals and 22 Democratic-run states, plus the District of Columbia. In each of the three cases, a federal appeals court refused to intervene after a trial judge blocked the executive order across the country.

Trump asked the high court to limit those rulings to particular people connected to the cases, or to the states and other jurisdictions that sued.

Barrett said the nationwide orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

But she also said judges have power to give “complete relief” to suing parties, leaving open the possibility that lower court judges could block the policy in the jurisdictions that sued and possibly more broadly.

The states, which are involved in two of the suits, say they would receive less federal aid if the policy took effect because many programs apply only to citizens. And the states say letting the restrictions take effect in neighboring jurisdictions would be unworkable given that children often move across state lines.

Barrett said the lower courts should consider whether there are ways to address those issues short of a nationwide block on the policy. She didn’t resolve the administration’s separate argument that the states lacked legal standing to sue at all.

She also left open the possibility that, at least in some cases, individuals could use class action suits to seek far-reaching court orders.

Critics say Trump is trying to unilaterally overturn part of the 14th Amendment, which confers citizenship on anyone who is born in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The Supreme Court said in 1898 that the provision covered a man born in California to two Chinese parents, and the court reinforced that decision in a 1982 ruling backing the right of undocumented immigrants to attend public school. Congress has enacted similar guarantees by statute.

Trump’s executive order is being challenged by immigrant-rights organizations, affected individuals and Democratic-run states. In each of the three cases, a federal appeals court refused to intervene after a trial judge blocked the executive order.

The cases are Trump v. CASA, 24a884; Trump v. Washington, 24a885; and Trump v. New Jersey, 24a886.

(Updates with Trump reaction starting in third paragraph.)

--With assistance from Zoe Tillman and Erik Larson.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.