The US Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against government policies during legal challenges. This decision, in many respects, represents a victory for President Donald Trump, though perhaps not immediately for the very policy he seeks to enforce.
An executive order signed by the Republican president on his first day back in office in January aimed to restrict birthright citizenship. This far-reaching plan was swiftly halted nationwide by three federal judges, who questioned its constitutionality through so-called “universal” injunctions.
However, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, while signaling a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years in deploying such relief, left enough room for challengers to Trump’s directive to potentially prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality proceeds.
Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work was extensively cited by the court’s majority, stated, “I do not expect the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect.”
Trump’s executive order instructs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States unless at least one parent is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident (a “green card” holder). The three lower court judges found that this order likely violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The directive remains blocked as lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions. The Supreme Court specified that the order cannot take effect for 30 days, providing challengers with a window to seek further protection from those courts.
The court’s six conservative justices formed the majority, granting Trump’s request to narrow the injunctions issued by judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts. The three liberal members dissented.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed to the court by Trump in 2020, authored the majority opinion. She emphasized the need to curtail the power of judges, cautioning against an “imperial” judiciary. Barrett asserted that judges can provide “complete relief” only to the specific plaintiffs directly before them.
Impact on a Host of Policies
This outcome is a major win for Trump and his allies, who have consistently criticized judges for impeding his agenda. The ruling could make it easier for his administration to implement policies, including accelerating migrant deportations, restricting transgender rights, curtailing diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsizing the federal government—many of which have pushed the boundaries of executive power.
In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling still allows for individual plaintiffs to seek broader relief through class action lawsuits. These lawsuits would target a policy that challenges the long-held understanding that the Constitution grants citizenship to virtually anyone born on U.S. soil.
Bray anticipates a surge of new class action cases, which would result in “class-protective” injunctions. “Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal,” Bray commented.
Some challengers have already taken this route. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, have asked the presiding judge who issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action. This aims to protect all children who would be rendered ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order were to take effect.
“I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we’ll ultimately get, there is no difference,” said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. “We’re going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.”
The ruling also sidestepped a key question regarding whether states bringing lawsuits might require an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to address this issue first.
States Challenge the Directive
Trump’s directive has also been challenged by 22 states, predominantly governed by Democrats. These states argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face necessitate a nationwide block on Trump’s order.
Ilya Somin, a constitutional law expert at George Mason University, noted that the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not yet decided by the Supreme Court. “As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups,” Somin stated.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but outlined a path forward. Platkin stated, “The ruling recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm—which is true, and has always been true, in our case.”
Platkin committed to “keep challenging President Trump’s flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War” of 1861-1865.
Legal experts anticipate significant legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often more difficult to successfully mount. States, too, remain uncertain whether they possess the requisite legal standing to sue. Trump’s administration contended they do not, a debate the court left unresolved.
Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump’s order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others.
“The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School’s immigrants’ rights clinic.
