In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that sided with the Trump administration regarding the management of universal injunctions by federal courts.
The case revolved around President Trump’s executive order, which sought to redefine the eligibility for birthright citizenship by stating that children born in the United States to parents who entered the country illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically be granted citizenship.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, which refrained from addressing the potential violations of the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act posed by President Trump’s order.
Instead, the ruling examined whether federal courts possess the power to issue nationwide injunctions.
The conservative majority expressed that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority conferred upon federal courts by Congress.
The Court ultimately granted a partial stay of the lower court injunctions but emphasized that this stay would only apply to the broader injunctions that were unnecessary for providing complete relief to the plaintiffs with standing to sue.
In their opinion, the Supreme Court urged lower courts to reconsider their expansive rulings based on this guidance and stressed the importance of adhering to principles of equity.
Importantly, the ruling stipulated that Trump’s order regarding birthright citizenship cannot take effect for 30 days following the Court’s decision, allowing additional time for legal opponents to respond.
After the ruling, President Donald Trump made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room.
He hailed the decision as a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” expressing optimism that it would empower his administration to advance key facets of its immigration policy without facing widespread legal restrictions.
Joining him was Attorney General Pam Bondi, who echoed the sentiment that the ruling validated the will of American voters.
Bondi pointed out that the fundamental questions regarding the merits of the birthright citizenship order have yet to be litigated and refrained from elaborating on potential implementation and enforcement strategies.
In concurrent matters, the Supreme Court also issued other notable rulings on this day, including decisions on parental rights regarding LGBTQ curriculum materials in schools, a key aspect of the Affordable Care Act related to preventive care, a Texas law concerning age verification for adult websites, and a Louisiana redistricting case postponed to the next term.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking for the dissenting three liberal justices, criticized the majority’s push to limit universal injunctions, arguing that it disregards fundamental principles of equity and a long-standing precedent for granting injunctive relief to parties beyond just those directly involved.
The birthright citizenship order had come under scrutiny after immigrant rights organizations and 22 states filed lawsuits against it.
Three federal district court judges invalidated Trump’s directive, issuing universal injunctions to prevent the administration from enforcing the policy nationwide.
When appellate courts declined to intervene during the ongoing litigation, the Trump administration sought the Supreme Court’s help in blocking these universal injunctions altogether.
The decision, while procedural, centers on Trump’s controversial stance that negates the existence of automatic citizenship for individuals born within the United States.
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order asserting that children born in the U.S. could be denied citizenship if their parents were undocumented or here temporarily.
However, this view contradicts a Supreme Court ruling from 127 years ago, a legal foundation that remains untouched and is supported by the text of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment, enacted in 1866 in the aftermath of the Civil War, explicitly states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
This principle was designed to reverse the prior Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, which denied citizenship rights to Black individuals.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday did not alter this longstanding understanding that has persisted for over 150 years.
On Truth Social, President Trump celebrated the ruling as a “giant win” and implied that immigrants were attempting to exploit the system to gain U.S. citizenship, suggesting that the 14th Amendment was initially intended solely to grant citizenship to the children of slaves.
image source from：npr
