In a major decision that could shape how future presidents use their powers, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of President Donald Trump in a case connected to his effort to end birthright citizenship. While the court did not decide whether Trump’s policy to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants is legal, it made another big decision: federal judges can no longer easily block government policies across the whole country while those policies are being challenged in court.
The ruling, passed with a 6-3 vote by the court’s conservative majority, is seen as a big victory for Trump. It limits the powers of judges and makes it harder for people to quickly stop federal policies they believe are unfair or illegal.
Though presidents from both political parties have complained about nationwide court blocks, Trump had more of them issued against him than any recent president. Now, this ruling gives him and future presidents more space to act, even if lawsuits are still ongoing.
“This was a big decision,” Trump said from the White House shortly after the ruling was issued. The president called it “an amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.”
What is the Birthright Citizenship Verdict about?
The case was linked to Trump’s executive order that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented immigrants. Under the current understanding of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, any child born on American soil is automatically a US citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The court did not rule on whether Trump’s order is constitutional. Instead, it focused on whether federal judges can use their power to block such orders nationwide while the courts are still reviewing them. In short, the Supreme Court said that lower courts should not be able to stop the entire country from following a government policy just because one judge disagrees with it during the early stages of a case.
This means that although Trump’s policy is still being challenged and may be blocked later, it can be put into effect in the meantime unless a class-action lawsuit or state-level case succeeds in stopping it.
Nationwide court blocks now harder to get
One of the biggest changes from this ruling is that lower courts can no longer easily issue nationwide injunctions, legal orders that stop a policy from being enforced across the whole country. These court blocks had been used to pause Trump’s past actions on immigration, the military and public health.
Now, if someone wants to challenge a federal policy, they’ll have to use other legal paths that may take more time and may only protect smaller groups of people at first. This change makes it harder for legal opponents to stop government actions quickly, even if those actions are later found to be unconstitutional.
Class-action lawsuits now more important
Even though the ruling makes nationwide court blocks harder to get, it still allows for class-action lawsuits. In a class-action, one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group who are in the same situation. If successful, such lawsuits can still lead to wide protections that apply to everyone affected by a policy.
As soon as the ruling was announced, immigrant rights groups and pregnant women who had already sued over Trump’s birthright citizenship order asked courts to reframe their cases as class actions. They are now trying to convince judges that the executive order should be blocked not just for them, but for everyone it could harm.
Although class-action cases can lead to similar results as nationwide injunctions, they require extra steps. Judges have to decide who qualifies as part of the affected group before they can issue a broader order. During the court hearings, even some justices admitted the difference may be mostly technical, but those small legal details can still affect how quickly people get protection.
States still have a strong role to play
The ruling also leaves room for states to continue challenging Trump’s policies. In this case, more than 20 Democratic-led states had already sued the administration, arguing that they needed a nationwide block on Trump’s order. They said people could simply cross state lines to have babies in states that still recognize birthright citizenship, making it impossible for individual states to enforce the law differently.
Although the Supreme Court didn’t directly rule on this argument, it didn’t block it either. This means state governments can return to lower courts and argue that a nationwide hold on Trump’s order is still necessary to protect their interests. If those courts agree, the case could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
Trump’s winning streak at the Supreme Court continues
This ruling is just the latest in a series of big wins for Trump at the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court ruled that sitting presidents are largely immune from being prosecuted for official acts, a decision that helped Trump avoid trial in a case linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has continued to win emergency rulings from the court on immigration and other issues.
‘Executive lawlessness will flourish,’ strong opposition from liberal justices
Not all justices agreed with the ruling. The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly disagreed and wrote powerful dissents. Justice Sotomayor said the decision gives the executive branch too much power and lets the government enforce unfair and unconstitutional policies while legal battles are still happening.
She accused the majority of helping the administration play legal “games” to avoid court checks. Sotomayor was so concerned that she took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent out loud in court—a sign of how serious she thought the issue was, according to a report by CNN.
Justice Jackson went even further. She warned that if judges allow presidents to act unlawfully, even for a short time, it could lead to more abuse of power. In her words, if this continues, “executive lawlessness will flourish,” and eventually, the government may no longer follow the Constitution at all.
“The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,” she wrote.
What happens next?
Even though Trump can’t immediately enforce his birthright citizenship order without challenge, this ruling changes how future battles over his policies will unfold. Legal opponents now have fewer options to stop a policy right away, and they’ll have to rely more on class-action lawsuits or state-led challenges.
Several of these cases are already underway in lower courts, and some may return to the Supreme Court in the future. While Trump allies hope the court will directly rule on the birthright issue as early as October, experts say the process usually takes much longer.