SCOUTS Limits Judges Power to Block Trump Birthright Citizenship Order/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court on Friday limited lower courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions but left President Trump’s birthright citizenship ban unresolved. The ruling reshapes the legal battleground for hundreds of lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders. Justices remain divided on how far courts should go in blocking presidential actions nationwide.
SCOTUS Nationwide Injunction Ruling + Quick Looks
- Partial win for Trump: SCOTUS limits universal injunctions but keeps some in place.
- Birthright citizenship unresolved: High stakes for Trump’s controversial order.
- Judicial authority questioned: Justices debate courts’ power to block presidents.
- Sweeping implications: Ruling impacts hundreds of lawsuits against Trump policies.
- Deep ideological split: Justices clash over nationwide remedies and legal limits.
SCOUTS Limits Judges Power to Block Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
Deep Look
SUPREME COURT LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS, LEAVES TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT ORDER IN LIMBO
The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced decision Friday, partially restricting federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, a tool that’s increasingly shaped modern legal battles over presidential policies.
But the ruling left a key question hanging: whether President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship can move forward.
A FRACTURED RULING, WITH BIG IMPLICATIONS
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that federal courts don’t automatically have the power to impose universal injunctions, but also left room for exceptions in certain cases.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that the issue wasn’t the legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy itself, but whether lower courts overstepped by blocking it nationwide.
“The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Barrett wrote. “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.”
THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CLASH
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day of his second term, seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.
Currently, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil. The Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented that principle, with narrow exceptions for children of diplomats, foreign enemies during occupation, or members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump and his allies argue the clause doesn’t cover children of undocumented immigrants, whom they claim aren’t truly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Federal judges have uniformly ruled against Trump’s interpretation, keeping his order blocked since it was signed.
A TOOL THAT SHAPES POLICY WARS
The high court’s ruling comes amid growing battles over nationwide injunctions, which lower courts have increasingly used to freeze presidential actions across the entire country.
These sweeping orders have blocked various Trump-era measures, including the military ban on transgender service members, changes to USAID operations, and even oversight of Elon Musk’s government-efficiency organization, DOGE.
During May’s oral arguments, justices across ideological lines recognized the rise of universal injunctions in recent years but appeared sharply divided on whether they’re necessary safeguards or judicial overreach.
DEBATE IN THE COURTROOM
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions force judges into “rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” and warned they flip the usual appeals process upside down:
“They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere,” Sauer said.
Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, were deeply skeptical of universal injunctions.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered that stripping lower courts of such power could create chaos, forcing thousands of individual lawsuits instead of one unified ruling.
“If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power,” Sotomayor said, suggesting the issue could ultimately affect the high court’s own authority.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed concerns that the Supreme Court can’t realistically handle every dispute nationwide if lower courts lose the ability to block federal actions broadly.
Meanwhile, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing states opposing Trump’s order, argued that alternative remedies like class actions might not move fast enough to protect rights in urgent cases.
“We are sympathetic to some of the concerns the United States has about percolation, about running the table in particular cases,” he said. “We just don’t think that that supports a bright line rule that says [universal injunctions] are never available.”
A LEGAL FUTURE STILL UNCERTAIN
Though Friday’s decision clarified some limits on lower court powers, it left Trump’s birthright citizenship policy unresolved, ensuring continued litigation.
The ruling could shape the outcome of more than 300 federal lawsuits challenging Trump’s second-term executive actions since January 2025.
Trump, undeterred, has vowed to press forward, while opponents promise to keep fighting. With high stakes for immigration law and presidential power, the next chapter may soon land back at the Supreme Court.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.