A recent US Supreme Court ruling has partially strengthened President Donald Trump’s ability to implement new policies by limiting the reach of federal judges’ nationwide injunctions. Yet it may not be enough to enforce one of his most controversial moves: an executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.
On his first day back in office this January, Trump signed an order denying automatic citizenship to children born in the US unless at least one parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. Three federal judges promptly blocked the order, questioning its constitutionality under the 14th Amendment.
While Friday’s Supreme Court decision curbs the practice of judges issuing sweeping “universal” injunctions, it still gives those challenging Trump’s policy time to block it before it takes effect. The court’s ruling, delivered by its six conservative justices, means Trump’s directive cannot be enforced for at least 30 more days, allowing plaintiffs to seek narrower but still powerful forms of legal relief.
Legal experts suggest these challengers could now pursue class action lawsuits, which, if successful, could protect all potentially affected children nationwide. Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law professor and critic of universal injunctions whose work was cited by the court, said: “I do not expect the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect.”
In the Maryland case, plaintiffs including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups have already asked the judge to convert the lawsuit into a class action. William Powell, one of their lawyers, argued that this approach could secure the same broad protection: “We’re going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.”
The ruling also left several questions unresolved, including whether states challenging the order could still secure broader injunctions to protect themselves from administrative and financial burdens. Twenty-two states, mostly led by Democrats, are part of the challenge and argue that they could suffer significant harm if Trump’s policy takes effect.
Legal scholars like Ilya Somin from George Mason University noted that the court intentionally left those issues for lower courts to decide, meaning further litigation is inevitable.
In the meantime, Trump’s administration maintains that the order is lawful and should proceed. But challengers, including state attorneys general, say it would be the first time since the Civil War that American-born children are stripped of citizenship.
Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s Attorney General, emphasized that the fight is far from over. He argued the ruling still acknowledges that nationwide orders can be appropriate when needed to protect plaintiffs from harm: “We will keep challenging President Trump’s flagrantly unlawful order.”
Elora Mukherjee of Columbia Law School’s immigrants’ rights clinic warned that the uncertainty created by the ruling could leave families unsure whether their children will be recognized as US citizens, depending on where they live: “The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families across the country in deep uncertainty.”
The coming weeks will likely bring an intense round of legal maneuvering in lower courts. Class actions may be harder to win, and the court has yet to decide if states have the legal right to sue over this policy. For now, Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship remains blocked, but the legal battle is far from over.
