Six conservative justices side with President in landmark ruling that limits nationwide injunctions – but his executive order still faces 30-day delay
Donald Trump has hailed today’s Supreme Court ruling a “giant win” after judges were told their power to block his bid to end birthright citizenship had been curbed.
The decision, which split the Supreme Court six to three, will ensure the 47th President’s proposal now avoids facing sweeping injunctions mounted by individual judges across America.
All six conservative justices sided with Trump, including the three he personally appointed to the Supreme Court – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
However, in a significant caveat, the court ruled that Trump’s controversial executive order cannot take effect for at least 30 days, giving time for further legal challenges.
‘Giant win!’ Trump’s victory lap
Shortly after the ruling, Trump took to Truth Social to celebrate: “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!
“Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year), not the scamming of our immigration process.
Making a rare appearance in the White House briefing room, Trump declared: “This was a big one. Amazing decision, one we’re very happy about.
This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.
Barrett delivers the blow
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump in 2020, wrote the majority opinion that delivered the victory to her former boss.
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 declared.
The conservative justice added: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in the 6-3 decision.
The birthright battle
The case arose after Trump was put at loggerheads with various judges over his proposal to end the right to birthright citizenship.
Trump attempted to push ahead with an executive order to deny citizenship to American-born children of people who entered the country illegally or on temporary visas.
However, his proposal was met with a judicial backlash in the form of nationwide injunctions in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington – with judges calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
What Trump wants to change
Birthright citizenship, which is protected in the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, enables anyone born in America to acquire automatic citizenship rights.
The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Trump intends to amend the law to only provide birthright citizenship to those born in the US with at least one parent who is either US-born or a permanent resident.
According to plaintiffs, more than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect.
The slavery connection
Addressing reporters, Trump linked the issue to America’s history of slavery: “That’s not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of the sudden there’s citizenship, you know they’re a citizen, that is all about slavery.
The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1866 after the Civil War and aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, which had declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens.
Liberal justices sound the alarm
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the dissent against the Supreme Court’s ruling, warning of dire consequences.
No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
She added: “The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.
“That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.
Jackson’s ‘imperial judiciary’ warning
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a separate dissent, called the ruling “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
She accused the majority of using 18th-century judicial norms as a “smokescreen” for granting the executive branch unchecked power.
Barrett fired back at Jackson in unusually sharp language: “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.”
The loophole: Class actions
Crucially, Barrett’s ruling left open the availability of class-action lawsuits against Trump’s executive order.
In fact, she effectively invited such suits by referring to nationwide injunctions as a “class-action workaround.”
Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking class action status for all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect.
“The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate,” the lawyers wrote.
Attorney General celebrates
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who joined Trump at the press conference, said the ruling means “Americans are finally getting what they voted for.
She noted that the merits of the birthright citizenship order haven’t been litigated yet and declined to answer questions about how it would be implemented and enforced.
What happens next?
While Trump celebrated today’s procedural victory, the constitutional battle over birthright citizenship is far from over.
The executive order cannot go into effect for 30 days, giving time for further legal challenges – likely in the form of class action lawsuits.
Trump’s plan still faces a legal hurdle in New Hampshire after a separate lawsuit which did not appear before the Supreme Court put the brakes on the policy.
The proposal does have legal backing in 21 other US states.
A warning shot to judges
The ruling represents a significant blow to the power of individual federal judges who have increasingly used nationwide injunctions to block presidential policies.
These sweeping orders have been used by both parties – Democrats blocked many Trump policies in his first term, while Republicans used them extensively against Biden and Obama administrations.
Today’s decision makes clear that such broad judicial interventions will face skepticism from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.
As one conservative legal expert put it: “The Court has shut the door on the abuse of universal injunctions. Left-wing groups who relied on ‘forum-shopping’ to find friendly judges in remote places who could stop national policies have now lost a key weapon in their arsenal.”
Image credit: Photo by The White House, taken on 6 May 2025 as an official U.S. federal government portrait of Donald Trump during his presidency. This work is in the public domain under U.S. federal law (Title 17, Sec. 105)
Image page: View on Wikimedia Commons – “Trump in May 2025.png”
