Supreme Court sides with Trump on birthright citizenship injunctions. Here’s what it means

On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to partially pause a ruling from three federal judges that had blocked President Trump's order to end birthright citizenship, which gives citizenship to almost anyone born in the U.S. In a 6-3 vote, the justices said that universal injunctions, which stop the government from enforcing laws across the entire country, were not acceptable. However, they didn't discuss whether Trump's order was constitutional.

The Trump administration might still not be able to enforce the order against specific individuals who challenged it for the next 30 days. But the court's opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, suggests that there could be more legal battles in lower courts about how the injunctions should be adjusted. There is also the chance for a larger class-action lawsuit from people affected by the order but not included in the current cases.

Justice Barrett mentioned that while universal injunctions can help check the power of the Executive Branch, federal courts should not overstep their authority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the majority, stating that the ruling limits individuals' constitutional rights unless they are part of a lawsuit.

Trump's order, signed on January 20, states that babies born in the U.S. would not automatically be citizens if their parents are living in the country illegally or temporarily. This order faced multiple challenges in courts in places like Washington and Massachusetts, with critics arguing it violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

The 14th Amendment was added in 1868 to ensure citizenship for newly freed Black people, overturning a previous Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to enslaved individuals. In 1898, the Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a child born in California to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen, reinforcing the principle of birthright citizenship.

Several judges have agreed with those challenging Trump's order, noting it is unconstitutional and temporarily blocking its enforcement. The Trump administration argues that such broad injunctions exceed the courts' powers, and they want to limit them.

Legal arguments about the injunctions have been ongoing, with the administration claiming that nationwide injunctions disrupt their ability to govern. Those opposing the order want the courts to keep the current injunctions in place, arguing that this order undermines established citizenship laws.

The Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in mid-May. In their majority opinion, Justice Barrett stated that universal injunctions are not historically grounded and should be limited to specific cases, emphasizing that providing complete relief in one situation doesn't mean extending it to everyone.

The justices did not finalize whether the injunctions should be adjusted for the states involved in the challenge. States claimed that a broad injunction was necessary to protect their interests, as residents and birthplaces of children could vary greatly.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also dissented, arguing that allowing the Executive Branch to violate constitutional rights for those not involved in lawsuits threatens the rule of law.