Supreme Court rules on case involving Trump's birthright citizenship order

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today if lower courts could issue universal, or nationwide, injunctions to block a president’s executive order. 

At the heart of the matter was President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship, which is the policy that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. 

The court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, voting to "partially stay," or suspend the lower court rulings, while the case is pending in the Supreme Court. The justices did not rule on the merits of Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, only on whether federal judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch. 

The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."

The ruling is a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.  

White House vs. judges

Legal question:

The Supreme Court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the Trump administration’s plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Those rulings were issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, who determined that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment.

The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to sidestep the legal merits of the executive order itself and rule that judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court agreed, for now. 

The justices ruled that the government's requests to reverse the federal court rulings "are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary."

 

What they're saying:

"Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them," the ruling states. 

"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

Trump called the ruling a "GIANT WIN" in a post on Truth Social, then made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room to discuss the decision. 

Trump said it was an "amazing" decision and a "monumental victory for the Constitution," separation of powers and the rule of law.

Attorney General Pam Bondi also praised the ruling. 

"These injunctions have allowed district court judges to be emperors. They vetoed all of President Trump's power, and they cannot do that," she said at a news conference Friday.  

The other side:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson. 

"The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along," Sotomayor wrote. 

Jackson also issued a separate dissent.

"Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected," Jackson wrote. 

What's next:

The court says Trump's order on birthright citizenship won't take effect for 30 days. Barrett also said lower courts should decide whether to issue a narrower injunction for the states that brought the lawsuit. 

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of "putative nationwide class." Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

What is birthright citizenship?

Dig deeper:

Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for over a century and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," the 14th Amendment says. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the country after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.

By the numbers:

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said earlier this year that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

A 2018 analysis by the group found that in 2014, one in five births (791,000) in the U.S. was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal). The group said it estimated that legal immigrants accounted for 12.4% (494,000) of all births and illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5% (297,000).

Trump birthright citizenship order

The backstory:

Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in "birth tourism," in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries.

Trump has said that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called "a priceless and profound gift" in the executive order he signed soon after becoming president again in January.

RELATED: Trump proposes $5M ‘gold card’ visa as new path to US citizenship

Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally had been halted nationwide by three district courts around the country. Appeals courts declined to disturb those rulings.

The other side:

States and immigrant rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Do other countries have birthright citizenship?

Big picture view:

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

ImmigrationSupreme CourtPolitics