Sachin Shankar Yadav 
The June 27, 2025, ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court marks a dramatic change in the judiciary’s control over presidential actions. The Court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders in a 6-3 decision that followed ideological lines. In particular, this decision allows the Trump administration to move forward with its contentious proposal to limit birthright citizenship, which was previously halted by lower courts.
Context: The Executive Order of President Trump
President Trump signed an executive order on January 2025, his first day back in office, instructing federal agencies to refuse automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The order was intended to:
- Offspring of undocumented immigrants
- Offspring of individuals with temporary visas (workers, students)
- Offspring of lawful permanent residents who do not possess citizenship
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which declares that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” was directly challenged by this policy. The order was unanimously blocked as “patently unconstitutional” by lower courts in Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
The ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court’s decision was more concerned with judicial power than with citizenship in general:
Nationwide injunctions curtailed: Judges can now only halt policies for particular plaintiffs or jurisdictions, not the entire country.
Administrative green light: With the exception of New Hampshire, where a different lawsuit prevents it, the administration is free to enforce the birthright citizenship policy everywhere.
Legal justification: According to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” when issuing universal injunctions, courts go beyond their authority.
Important Consequences for US Immigration
Immediate effect on policy: If enacted, it could deny citizenship to children of non-citizen parents, affecting about 150,000 births annually.
Expanded presidential power: When enacting national policies through executive order, future presidents will encounter fewer legal obstacles.
Fragmented legal challenges: Instead of pursuing nationwide blocks, opponents must now bring state-specific lawsuits.
Constitutional ambiguity: The decision does not address whether restrictions on birthright citizenship are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, leaving this issue for further legal proceedings.
Responses and Debates
Conservative victory: The administration hailed the return of executive authority and referred to earlier injunctions as “judicial overreach.”
Liberal dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “shameful gamesmanship,” pointing out that all lower courts had declared the order to be unconstitutional.
Public opinion: According to recent surveys, 52% of Americans are against abolishing birthright citizenship, with partisan differences being particularly pronounced (84% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans).
What Happens Next
Despite ongoing legal disputes, the policy may go into effect after a 30-day implementation period. Narrower injunctions may be issued, and new lawsuits may be filed by specific states. Future Supreme Court cases regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment will be framed by the unresolved constitutional question.
The power dynamics between the government’s branches are altered by this decision, which may allow for more forceful executive actions on immigration and other issues. The way lower courts understand the new restrictions on judicial power will determine its long-term effects.