Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Limits Nationwide Injunctions In Birthright Citizenship Fight

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Friday in a case regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, ruling that lower courts do not have the unilateral authority to block Trump’s agenda.

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines, allowing Trump to try to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others.

The ruling did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself, which is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.

Previously, lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump’s order from taking effect.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the opinion for the majority.

JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free

She wrote that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett said.

Trump celebrated the ruling on Friday.

.@POTUS: "This is SUCH A BIG DAY… this is a very big moment, and it gives power back to people that should have it… it only takes bad power away from judges."

"This is a very monumental decision." pic.twitter.com/FTTt8Ur8r9

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 27, 2025

“Big one, wasn’t it? This was a big decision,” Trump said from the White House briefing room, calling the ruling an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.”

Trump said a “whole list” of his policies can now move forward thanks to the decision, including ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.

Trump also praised Barrett, whom he nominated to the court in 2020.

“I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today — from all accounts,” the president told reporters.

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated Friday’s ruling and said she is “very confident” the Supreme Court will eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship.

Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer.

This…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) June 27, 2025

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion saying, “For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

Jackson also wrote her own dissent, which stated that “the Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

Barrett blistered Jackson’s dissent in the court’s opinion.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Very sharp rebuke of Jackson's dissent.
Last sentence ends: "law against anyone, anywhere."
ACB majority opinion concludes: "JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." pic.twitter.com/CU9Ryss8rq

— Philip Wallach (@PhilipWallach) June 27, 2025

Barrett went on to say that Jackson “skips over” the “limits on judicial authority.”

“Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ …  she seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?'” Barrett wrote. “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”