Trump Hails Supreme Court Victory Limiting Nationwide Injunctions on Birthright Citizenship Order
Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025 — President Donald Trump celebrated a 6-3 Supreme Court decision on June 27, 2025, that curbed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, paving the way for his controversial executive order to end automatic birthright citizenship to move forward in parts of the country. The ruling, a major win for Trump’s second-term agenda, restricts injunctions to only the plaintiffs who sued, allowing the policy to proceed in states not covered by ongoing litigation. While the decision avoids addressing the order’s constitutionality, it marks a significant shift in judicial oversight of executive power, sparking heated debate over immigration and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Ruling
What Happened: In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to partially stay nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, which had blocked Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, argued that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” limiting them to plaintiffs with standing. The order remains blocked for 30 days, giving lower courts time to reassess.
Why It Matters: The ruling, split along ideological lines with liberals dissenting, weakens the ability of single district judges to halt executive policies nationwide, a tool used against both Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump called it a “monumental victory for the Constitution” in a White House briefing, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming it stops “radical-left judges” from overriding voter mandates.
The Birthright Citizenship Order
Details: Signed on Trump’s first day in office, the executive order challenges the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Trump argues the “jurisdiction” clause excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, a view contradicted by the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, which affirmed birthright citizenship.
Public Reaction: A June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 24% support for ending birthright citizenship, with 52% opposed, including 84% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans. Trump claimed the policy targets “cartels” and those “scamming the system,” asserting it was “meant for the babies of slaves,” a historically inaccurate reference to the 14th Amendment’s post-Civil War origins.
Legal and Political Fallout
Dissenting Voices: Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor calling the ruling a “travesty for the rule of law” that invites constitutional violations. Jackson labeled it an “existential threat” to judicial checks, urging class-action lawsuits as an alternative. Within hours, Maryland plaintiffs filed for class-action status to block the order broadly. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “terrifying step toward authoritarianism” by a “MAGA court.”
Ongoing Litigation: The policy remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate lawsuit, and lower courts must now tailor injunctions to specific plaintiffs. The ACLU, involved in the litigation, called the ruling “troubling but limited,” vowing to ensure the order never takes effect. Attorney General Bondi noted the constitutionality question will be addressed in the Court’s next term, starting October 2025.
Broader Implications
Judicial Power: The decision, praised by Vice President JD Vance on X as a “huge ruling” against “ridiculous” injunctions, limits the judiciary’s ability to check executive actions, potentially enabling Trump’s other policies, like ending sanctuary city funding or suspending refugee resettlement. Critics, like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, remain confident the order will be struck down on constitutional grounds.
Immigration Debate: The ruling risks a “patchwork citizenship system,” where citizenship status could vary by state, disrupting benefits like Medicaid, per New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum. Protests outside the Court, joined by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, underscored public opposition, with chants defending the 14th Amendment.
What This Means
Trump’s Supreme Court win on June 27, 2025, marks a pivotal shift, curbing nationwide injunctions and clearing a path for his birthright citizenship order to take effect in some states after July 27, unless blocked further. While not addressing the order’s legality, the decision strengthens executive power, raising concerns about unchecked policies. Publishers should monitor lower court rulings and the October 2025 term for constitutional challenges, while readers should note the polarized sentiment—only 28% of Americans support the policy, per NPR/Ipsos. This ruling reshapes judicial oversight, with implications for immigration and beyond, as Trump pushes his agenda amid fierce legal and public resistance.
