The US Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling on Friday restricted the authority of individual federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions , delivering a major win to President Donald Trump, who has long criticised lower courts for blocking his executive agenda.
The case stemmed from Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship through an executive order signed on his first day in office.
While the court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself, it stated that sweeping nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
The decision marks a significant judicial shift in how lawsuits against federal policies can proceed. However, the ruling did not settle whether Trump’s controversial policy change — which would deny citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants — can be implemented.
Birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law since shortly after the Civil War. The Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that nearly all individuals born on US soil are automatically citizens, except children of diplomats, hostile occupiers, those born on foreign ships, or to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump’s executive order challenges this long-standing interpretation, arguing that children born to those “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — such as undocumented immigrants — should not be granted citizenship. In the order, Trump described American citizenship as “a priceless and profound gift,” and claimed current policies allow for its exploitation.
So far, federal judges across various courts have unanimously ruled against the administration, rejecting its narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Immigrant advocates, states, and civil rights groups have argued that the move is an unconstitutional effort to redefine American citizenship and disrupt settled law.
The Department of Justice, supporting the president’s position, maintained that no single judge should be able to halt national policies for the entire country, urging the Supreme Court to limit injunctions to only the plaintiffs involved in a given case.
While the justices agreed that broad injunctions should be curbed, they left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship order could still be challenged — or blocked — under other legal avenues. For now, the executive order remains unenforced, though future litigation may ultimately determine its fate.
The administration also requested that, at minimum, it be allowed to publicly explain how it intends to implement the policy if it gets the green light in future proceedings. As of now, the court’s decision limits judicial overreach, but the core debate over who qualifies for US citizenship remains unresolved.
The case stemmed from Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship through an executive order signed on his first day in office.
While the court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself, it stated that sweeping nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
The decision marks a significant judicial shift in how lawsuits against federal policies can proceed. However, the ruling did not settle whether Trump’s controversial policy change — which would deny citizenship to children born in the US to undocumented immigrants — can be implemented.
Birthright citizenship, guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law since shortly after the Civil War. The Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that nearly all individuals born on US soil are automatically citizens, except children of diplomats, hostile occupiers, those born on foreign ships, or to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump’s executive order challenges this long-standing interpretation, arguing that children born to those “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the US — such as undocumented immigrants — should not be granted citizenship. In the order, Trump described American citizenship as “a priceless and profound gift,” and claimed current policies allow for its exploitation.
So far, federal judges across various courts have unanimously ruled against the administration, rejecting its narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Immigrant advocates, states, and civil rights groups have argued that the move is an unconstitutional effort to redefine American citizenship and disrupt settled law.
The Department of Justice, supporting the president’s position, maintained that no single judge should be able to halt national policies for the entire country, urging the Supreme Court to limit injunctions to only the plaintiffs involved in a given case.
While the justices agreed that broad injunctions should be curbed, they left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship order could still be challenged — or blocked — under other legal avenues. For now, the executive order remains unenforced, though future litigation may ultimately determine its fate.
The administration also requested that, at minimum, it be allowed to publicly explain how it intends to implement the policy if it gets the green light in future proceedings. As of now, the court’s decision limits judicial overreach, but the core debate over who qualifies for US citizenship remains unresolved.
You may also like
: The week that was in international affairs
Union Minister Scindia slams Cong over 'Emergency'; says 'Indira is India' slogan peak of arrogance
'Compromise Is Required': Barkha Singh Recalls Receiving Shocking E-mail For Role In South Film, Says 'Naam Nahi Daala Tha'
Kerala braces for possible opening of Mullaperiyar dam; over 3,000 people to be evacuated
East Bengal FC beat Measurers Club 7-1 to kickstart their CFL 2025 campaign
