Washington, D.C., June 28 — In a significant decision that could reshape the balance of power between the executive and judiciary branches, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major procedural victory to President Donald Trump. The ruling, issued in a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, curtails the ability of lower federal courts to impose sweeping nationwide injunctions against presidential policies—marking a potential shift in how executive directives are legally challenged.
The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, does not immediately allow Trump's contested executive order on birthright citizenship to take effect. Instead, it sends the matter back to lower courts for reconsideration of the scope of their injunctions. The Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the directive itself, which seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the country unless at least one parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
“This is a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law,” President Trump said following the ruling, adding that his administration is now in a position to revisit numerous executive actions previously blocked by nationwide court orders. “We have so many of them. I have a whole list.”
The decision addresses three federal injunctions—issued by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington—that halted the enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship order across the country. The Court’s majority ruled that while courts may grant relief to the plaintiffs before them, they must not extend that relief universally unless justified by exceptional circumstances.
A New Judicial Landscape
Justice Barrett, appointed by Trump in 2020, cautioned against what she described as an “imperial judiciary.” She emphasized the limits of judicial authority in restraining executive action, writing, “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
In a sharp dissent delivered from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor condemned the majority’s position, calling it a “travesty for the rule of law.” Joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor argued that the Court erred in sidestepping the legality of the executive order, which she described as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
“Rather than assess the merits, the Court enables enforcement of an unlawful policy by stripping courts of their ability to provide meaningful relief,” she wrote.
Immigration, Citizenship, and Constitutional Debate
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s controversial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States.” The administration contends that this provision does not extend citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or to parents residing in the U.S. on temporary visas. Legal scholars and immigrant advocacy groups have argued that such a policy would overturn longstanding constitutional norms.
According to the plaintiffs—which include 22 Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights organizations, and several pregnant immigrants—the order could impact over 150,000 births annually.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent lower courts from issuing broader relief through class action suits, which are more procedurally complex. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have already filed motions seeking class-wide injunctive relief, and a hearing is scheduled for Monday before U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, who previously blocked the order.
Legal and Political Reactions
The ruling comes as part of a string of Supreme Court decisions handed down on the final day of the term. On Friday, the Court also upheld a Texas law on online content moderation, allowed parental opt-outs from classes involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks, endorsed an FCC funding mechanism for broadband expansion, and preserved a key Obamacare provision requiring insurers to cover preventive care.
Legal and political reactions to the birthright citizenship ruling were sharply divided. The American Civil Liberties Union called the executive order “blatantly illegal and cruel,” warning of its potentially far-reaching implications. “We will do everything in our power to ensure no child is subjected to this policy,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who helped secure the original nationwide injunction, described the decision as “disappointing on many levels,” but noted that the Court left room for broad injunctive relief where necessary to protect plaintiffs.
On the political front, Trump hailed the ruling as clearing the way for several other stalled policies, including proposals to defund sanctuary cities, suspend refugee resettlement, halt certain federal spending, and restrict the use of federal funds for gender-affirming surgeries.
Shifting Precedent on Universal Injunctions
The ruling marks a significant development in the legal debate over “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions, a practice increasingly used by federal judges to halt the enforcement of executive actions across the country. Critics argue that such injunctions can undermine the separation of powers and enable judicial overreach, while defenders maintain they are necessary to provide effective relief in high-impact cases.
Although both Republican and Democratic administrations have opposed universal injunctions, their use has proliferated in recent years as courts have sought to limit sweeping executive actions.
The issue of birthright citizenship remains unresolved at the constitutional level. Sotomayor, in her dissent, called on affected families to pursue class action suits and temporary injunctions. Meanwhile, legal experts say the Court’s ruling could reshape the broader landscape of executive power and judicial review in the years ahead.
Public Opinion and Broader Implications
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 52% of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, with only 24% in support. Support for the policy is strongest among Republicans (43%) and weakest among Democrats (5%).
Friday’s decision is the latest in a series of immigration-related rulings favoring the Trump administration. Earlier this week, the Court allowed the resumption of certain deportations and the rollback of humanitarian protections, while maintaining its block on efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants without due process.
As legal and political battles continue, the implications of the Court's ruling are likely to reverberate across federal courts, immigration policy debates, and the 2025 presidential campaign trail.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.