Printer-friendly version
“We are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.” –Cody Wofsy, deputy director, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, which filed a class lawsuit in response to Supreme Court’s action
By G. A. McNeeley
June 28, 2025 (Washington D.C.) -- The United States Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions by lower courts, in a case that involves President Donald Trump's executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship, according to ABC 10.
It’s been widely accepted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship to most people who are born in the United States, NBC reports.
Despite this, the court ruled in a 6-3 vote to prohibit nationwide injunctions by lower courts. Thus the lower court must narrow its ruling to only those areas over which it has jurisdiction,not nationwide. The ruling allows Trump to enforce his executive order in other states not covered by lower court decisions, putting the future of babies born to undocumented parents in limbo.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, but will likely do so in the future when an appeal of lower court rulings finding the order unconstitutional reach the Supreme Court on appeal.
However the ACLU has filed a nationwide class acton lawsuit after the ruling, aiming to win an injunction to protect all babies born in the U.S. until the Supreme Court can rule on the constistutionality of the birthright citizenship order.
The case has implications that go beyond the birthright citizenship case, restricting nationwide injunctions in other matters as well.
What Is The Trump Administration Doing To Birthright Citizenship?
Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that would no longer automatically grant citizenship at birth to children of immigrants in the U.S. without legal status, according to ABC 10. The order applies to all such babies born after the date the order was issued, not retroactively, so it could not be applied to Trump’s own children, some of whom were born to Trump’s immigrant wives who were not yet citizens.
California and 21 other states quickly sued the administration over the executive order, and federal judges in Washington State, Maryland, and Massachusetts temporarily blocked the executive order after it was issued, according to Desert Sun.
Several district court judges issued injunctions that tried to stop the order from being implemented, but The Trump Administration argued that federal district court judges shouldn’t be able to issue such wide injunctions, according to ABC 10. With this ruling, a district court judge's decision would only be in effect for that specific district.
Trump told reporters at The White House that the ruling is "an amazing decision,” and that the court "delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law, in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch,” according to NBC.
"Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people," Trump said, according to ABC 10.
“Those three judges that have blocked the executive order of Donald Trump on birthright citizenship have to move now quickly, now that the case has been returned to them, over the next 30 days,” Michael Popok, national trial lawyer and co-founder of the Legal AF podcast, said in a YouTube video.
Popok added that those judges have to “narrow their injunction from a nationwide injunction to a narrow injunction only involving that state,” and that the lawyers have to “move quickly to get to the appellate court” to get a ruling there, and then “take an emergency application to a Supreme Court.”
What Are The Court Justices Saying About The Supreme Court’s Decision?
"When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, according to NBC.
Barrett added that lower courts "shall move expeditiously" to figure out how broad the injunctions are, and that it’s possible that states involved in the litigation could still obtain broad injunctions.
"No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, according to ABC 10.
"Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” Sotomayor added.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the court’s decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law,” according to NBC.
The court has said the executive order would technically go into effect in 30 days after the ruling, according to NBC.
What Does The 14th Amendment Say About Birthright Citizenship?
The 14 Amendment says 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 amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1868, after the Civil War, and it granted citizenship and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
The Trump Administration contends that the 14th Amendment doesn’t extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, according to Reuters.
Trump's Agenda47 policy platform states that he wants to clarify the amendment so that it’s understood that "U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States,” according to Desert Sun.
Trump has also complained about women who visit the United States to give birth and obtain U.S. citizenship for their children.
What Have Californians Been Saying About The Supreme Court’s Decision?
“The Supreme Court’s ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court’s decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,” U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-California) said, in a press release.
“Today’s decision emboldens President Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the Court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law,” Padilla added.
“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-California) said, in a press release.
Bonta added that The Supreme Court’s ruling is “creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented.”
Bonta also co-led a multistate coalition, arguing that Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to his press release.
U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-California) has said that the ruling was a "dark day for our democracy," in a post on X.
U.S. Representative Sara Jacobs (D-California) has said that “The Court tightened the rules on when a single judge can issue a nationwide injunction, instead of deciding the fate of birthright citizenship,” in a post on X. “That’s still a big problem,” she added.
U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) has said that “The Trump resistance in robes has been exposed by a supermajority of the Supreme Court. Time for an end to the rogue rulings from activist liberal judges,” in a post on X.
Curtis Morrison, an immigration lawyer with Red Eagle Law, told East County Magazine that his “law firm is in the process of onboarding a group lawsuit to challenge Trump’s latest travel ban right now. Before, I was telling impacted visa applicants that they could participate as plaintiffs or wait on the sidelines to see whether courts enjoined the ban.”
“Now, I’m in the ridiculous position of telling them they must hire me and put themselves before the court to expect relief. I just don’t see the point of me filing a lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs when they all have the same legal issue in common and one plaintiff puts the issue before the court. It throws judicial efficiency out the window. But worse, for those who can’t afford litigation, it throws access to justice out the window. And that’s probably the true goal,” Morrison added.
ACLU files class action lawsuit to protect babies in wake of ruling
The court did provide one key exception to its ban on nationwide injunctions, allowing them if a nationwide class action suit is filed.
So hours after the ruling came down, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order and their parents.This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation.
“Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in this case. “The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”
Recent comments