The Supreme Court ruled on Friday to restrict the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a practice that has challenged both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade.
This ruling, articulated by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasizes that such universal injunctions likely surpass the equitable authority conferred to federal courts by Congress.
The decision was met with dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case at hand, which has garnered significant public attention and confusion, arises from an emergency appeal made by the Trump administration.
The administration sought to limit court orders that have halted President Donald Trump’s executive order intended to change the long-established notion of birthright citizenship across the U.S.
Nationwide court orders have served as a crucial counterbalance to Trump’s policies, simultaneously provoking frustration among the Republican president and his allies.
During oral arguments last month, the Supreme Court appeared determined to maintain a block on the citizenship restrictions while searching for a method to curtail the influence of nationwide injunctions.
A majority of the court expressed apprehension about the implications of allowing the administration, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are undocumented.
States led by Democrats, along with immigrant and civil rights organizations, have argued vigorously against Trump’s executive order, claiming that it threatens the established understanding of birthright citizenship, a principle that has been upheld for over 125 years.
Birthright citizenship automatically grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children born to noncitizen parents.
This right is encapsulated in the 14th Amendment, which was established shortly after the Civil War.
The precedent was reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which determined that the only children not automatically conferred U.S. citizenship are those born to diplomats, enemies during occupation, or members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The U.S. stands among approximately 30 nations that recognize birthright citizenship, primarily found in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.
Trump and his supporters advocate for stricter criteria for obtaining U.S. citizenship, describing it—within the executive order signed on his inaugural day—as ‘a priceless and profound gift.’
The Trump administration argues that the children of noncitizens do not fall under the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States as mentioned in the 14th Amendment, asserting they are thus unentitled to citizenship.
In contrast, the states, immigrants, and rights advocates who have challenged this executive order claim that the administration is attempting to redefine a broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has persisted since the amendment’s enactment.
Judges across various jurisdictions have consistently ruled against the Trump administration’s position.
The Justice Department contended that individual judges do not possess the authority to extend their rulings nationwide.
Instead, the Trump administration sought to have the Supreme Court allow the executive plan to go into effect for all individuals, except for the few who had initiated legal action.
If that were not feasible, the administration proposed that the plan could be temporarily blocked only in the 22 states that had filed lawsuits, noting that New Hampshire is impacted by a separate legal order that remains untouched in this context.
As a fallback strategy, the administration requested permission to publicly announce its plans for implementing the policy if it were to take effect in the future.
image source from：nbcwashington
