On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to partially pause previous rulings from three federal judges that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order intended to end birthright citizenship. This controversial order would, beginning 30 days from the ruling, deny citizenship to babies born in the United States if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The justices voted 6-3 to reject the notion of universal or nationwide injunctions, which prevent the enforcement of laws or policies across the entire country. However, they did not address the core constitutional question regarding the legitimacy of the birthright citizenship order itself.
As it stands, the Trump administration will still be prevented from enforcing this order against the individual pregnant plaintiffs involved in the current lawsuits for the initial 30 days. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion acknowledged that there may be further litigation in lower courts regarding the scope of the injunctions. Additionally, there is the potential for class action lawsuits to challenge the order on behalf of other affected individuals not currently represented in the ongoing litigation.
Justice Barrett acknowledged the arguments that a universal injunction serves as a valuable tool for the Judiciary to hold the Executive Branch accountable. Yet, she asserted that federal courts do not hold extended oversight over the Executive Branch but are designed to resolve specific cases and controversies as per the authority granted by Congress. Her stance was clear: when a court finds the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, it must not overreach its power.
In a dissent that she read from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her strong discontent with the ruling. She declared that the majority’s decision implies that without extensive class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin unlawful policies unless doing so is crucial for the formal parties involved. According to Sotomayor, this ruling undermines constitutional guarantees for individuals who are not part of a lawsuit.
President Trump issued his executive order on January 20, shortly after being inaugurated for his second term. The order sparked immediate backlash and multiple lawsuits across various federal courts, including in states like Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Challengers argued that the order breaches the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which affirms that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are automatically citizens.
The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, specifically to counteract the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. The Supreme Court had ruled in that case that a Black person, whose ancestors had been enslaved, was not entitled to protections under the federal courts due to their non-citizen status.
In the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that the child of Chinese descent born in California was a U.S. citizen, countering the government’s argument against his citizenship. Justice Horace Gray elaborated that the 14th Amendment confirms the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth, applying to all children born within the territory, including those of resident aliens.
Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, ruled in favor of a coalition of states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—by deeming Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” He temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the order across the nation. Two other judges, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Maryland and Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts, also issued similar injunctions.
In a March petition to the Supreme Court, then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that these nationwide injunctions overstep constitutional limits on the judiciary’s powers and impede the Executive Branch’s capacity to function. She urged the court to stop the growing reliance on universal injunctions in lower courts.
The challengers included not only states but also immigrants’ rights groups and several individual pregnant women, arguing that maintaining the status quo—where birthright citizenship is acknowledged—does not represent an emergency warranting a stay.
The Supreme Court had announced, in April, the decision to hold arguments for the case on May 15. This was shortly after the conclusion of their regular argument schedule for the 2024-25 term.
In her 26-page majority opinion, Barrett contended that courts can only issue universal injunctions if historical precedent allows for such actions. She concluded that no historical basis existed for universal injunctions in federal court before the 20th century, and they remained rare until recently.
Furthermore, Barrett disputed the notion that district courts issued universal injunctions to provide complete relief for the challengers. While the concept of providing complete relief is significant, Barrett noted that it is a narrower concept than what a universal injunction entails. Providing relief for a particular plaintiff’s child does not necessitate extending the injunction to all similarly situated individuals.
The majority opinion did not resolve the issue of whether the states challenging the executive order should receive narrower injunctions, instead leaving it to lower courts to decide on that matter. The states argued that a universal injunction was necessary for them to provide complete relief, especially since citizens may move between states or be born out of state.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued her own dissent, arguing that the majority’s decision effectively allows the Executive to violate constitutional norms regarding those who have not yet taken legal action, presenting an existential threat to the rule of law.
image source from：scotusblog
