U.S. Supreme Court Curtails Nationwide Injunctions in Ruling That May Complicate Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

 Washington, D.C., June 29: In a pivotal ruling on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the authority of federal judges to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, a move widely seen as a significant legal victory for President Donald Trump. However, the decision left room for legal opponents of Trump’s controversial executive order restricting birthright citizenship to continue seeking ways to block its implementation.

The court’s 6–3 decision, split along ideological lines, limits the use of “universal” or nationwide injunctions—an increasingly common judicial tool used to freeze federal policies across the country during legal disputes. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett—appointed by Trump in 2020—warned against the rise of what she called an “imperial judiciary,” stating that courts should only grant relief to plaintiffs directly involved in a case.

The ruling is a boon to Trump’s broader policy agenda, which has frequently faced judicial roadblocks. It could ease the path for several initiatives, including stricter immigration enforcement, the rollback of transgender rights protections, and downsizing of federal programs.

Yet, in a twist of legal irony, the policy at the center of the court’s decision—Trump’s January executive order restricting birthright citizenship—remains blocked. The directive, issued on Trump’s first day back in office, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington quickly halted the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Although the high court narrowed the reach of those injunctions, it delayed implementation of Trump’s order for 30 days, giving challengers time to seek targeted relief through alternative legal avenues, including class action lawsuits.

“I do not expect the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,” said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and prominent critic of universal injunctions whose academic work was cited extensively in the majority opinion. He predicted a wave of new class action litigation aimed at securing broader protections.

Indeed, plaintiffs in Maryland—among them expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy organizations—have already petitioned the court to reclassify their suit as a class action. “We’re going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed,” said William Powell, counsel for the plaintiffs.

The court’s ruling also declined to resolve whether states suing over federal policies can obtain broader relief than individual plaintiffs. That question now returns to lower courts, which must determine whether states like New Jersey and California—part of a 22-state coalition opposing Trump’s order—have standing to seek nationwide protections based on administrative and financial burdens.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat and co-lead plaintiff in the Massachusetts case, vowed to continue the legal fight. “We will keep challenging President Trump’s flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War,” he said. While disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s ruling, Platkin noted that it preserved the ability to shield plaintiffs from harm through narrower—but still effective—legal remedies.

Legal experts expect intensified maneuvering in lower courts over the next several weeks. Class action certification, while potentially powerful, can be procedurally difficult to obtain, and the limits of state-level standing remain legally unsettled.

“The ruling opens the door for a patchwork application of the policy,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. “Families across the country now face deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born U.S. citizens.”

Unless courts grant new injunctions before the 30-day window closes, Trump’s birthright citizenship directive could go into effect—at least in parts of the country—setting up a complex and fragmented legal landscape with profound implications for American nationality law.