The US Supreme Court imposed a limitation on the powers of federal judges by curtailing their capacity to grant extensive legal relief in cases, as the justices ruled in a legal battle concerning President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. They instructed lower courts, which had blocked the policy, to reassess the extent of their orders.
Nonetheless, the court’s 6-3 decision, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not allow Mr. Trump’s policy to take effect immediately and refrained from addressing its legality.
The justices agreed to a request from the Trump administration to narrow the breadth of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state that halted the enforcement of his directive while litigation surrounding the policy continues. This ruling was also written by Ms. Barrett.
With conservatives holding the majority and liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Mr. Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after today’s ruling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court’s other two liberal members, stated, “the majority completely overlooks whether the President’s executive order is constitutional, instead concentrating solely on the question of whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. The obvious unlawfulness of the order highlights the seriousness of the majority’s mistake and emphasizes why equity supports universal injunctions as suitable remedies in cases like this.”
Mr. Trump expressed approval of the ruling in a social media post: “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote on Truth Social.
On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse recognition of citizenship for children born in the United States unless at least one parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident (also known as a “green card” holder).
According to the plaintiffs who challenged his directive, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states and immigrant rights advocates, over 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Mr. Trump’s policy.
The case brought before the Supreme Court was distinctive as the administration utilized it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide or “universal” injunctions and requested the justices to rule accordingly, enforcing the president’s directive without assessing its legal merits.
In her dissent, Ms. Sotomayor asserted that Mr. Trump’s executive order is evidently unconstitutional. Instead of defending it on its legal grounds, she wrote, the Justice Department “asks this Court to hold that, regardless of how illegal a law or policy may be, courts can never simply order the Executive to cease enforcement against anyone.”
“The gamesmanship in this request is evident, and the government makes no effort to conceal it,” Ms. Sotomayor expressed. “Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”
Federal judges have taken measures, including issuing nationwide orders, to impede Mr. Trump’s vigorous use of executive action to promote his agenda.
‘Illegal and cruel’
The American Civil Liberties Union termed the ruling troubling, yet limited, stating that lawyers can seek more protections for potentially affected families.
“The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be enforced against anyone,” noted Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
“The court’s decision to possibly allow enforcement is disappointing, but we will exert every effort to ensure no child has to endure the executive order.”
The plaintiffs contended that Mr. Trump’s directive contravened the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War (1861-1865), which abolished slavery in the United States.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, historically understood to confer citizenship to nearly anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants present in the country illegally or even to those whose presence is lawful yet temporary, such as university students or individuals on work visas.
Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state aided in securing the nationwide injunction issued by a Seattle judge, labeled today’s ruling “disappointing on many levels” but emphasized that the justices “confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when necessary to provide complete relief to the parties.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from 11-12 June found that 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship, while 52% opposed it.
Among Democrats, 5% supported its termination, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, while 24% opposed it. The rest were uncertain or did not respond.
The Supreme Court, boasting a 6-3 conservative majority, has granted Mr. Trump several significant victories regarding his immigration policies since his return to office in January.
On Monday, it paved the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without allowing them the opportunity to demonstrate the potential harms they might face.
In separate decisions on 30 May and 19 May, it permitted the administration to terminate the temporary legal status previously granted to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
However, the court upheld a block on Mr. Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law typically employed only in wartime, criticizing his administration for attempting to remove them without due process.
The court heard arguments concerning the birthright citizenship dispute on 15 May. US Solicitor General D John Sauer, representing the administration, informed the justices that Mr. Trump’s order “reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.”
An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark has long been interpreted as ensuring that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.
Mr. Trump’s administration has contended that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents from both parties, Republican and Democratic, as they can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, rather than only the individual plaintiffs who challenged it.
Supporters argue that they serve as an efficient check on presidential overreach and have impeded actions deemed unlawful by presidents from both parties.
