Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court To Decide Trump Executive Order Today—What To Know
The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship on Friday, a decision that marks the first major Supreme Court ruling of the president's second term—and one that could impact litigation against him going forward, as justices could restrict lower courts from banning his policies nationwide.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15. Getty Images
The Supreme Court is set to issue its ruling Friday in Trump v. CASA Inc., a case consolidating several lawsuits against Trump's executive order, which reverses longstanding Constitutional precedent to bar children born in the U.S. from automatically getting citizenship at birth if their parents aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Trump asked the Supreme Court to take up the legality of his executive order after lower courts unanimously blocked it, and the policy has not yet taken effect.
The president also asked justices to rule on whether federal judges representing a single state or region can impose injunctions that block a policy nationwide, meaning courts would not be able to unilaterally block his agenda going forward unless the Supreme Court rules.
Trump's request to the court on nationwide injunctions comes as administration officials and allies have repeatedly complained about federal judges blocking the president's policies, claiming judges are abusing their power and are biased against him politically.
The court's decision will come out when it releases opinions in the case at 10 a.m. EDT. The decision will the first major ruling by the Supreme Court on Trump's second-term policies. While justices have now issued a number of rulings regarding Trump policies on its 'shadow docket'—meaning it issues quicker rulings on issues without taking them up for oral argument first—the birthright citizenship dispute will mark the first time since Inauguration Day that justices held arguments regarding a Trump policy and then issued an opinion. But it's unlikely to be the last: hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the Trump administration in the months since Trump took office, and the court is expected to make the final call in a number of major disputes on everything from immigration to the economy. A group of small businesses asked the court in mid-June to take up Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs and whether they're lawful, after lower courts blocked the tariffs but appeals courts then put them back into effect while the litigation moves forward. Plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments over Trump tariffs right after its next term starts in the fall, and while the court rejected that request to expedite the case, it still could take up the dispute. Big Number
More than 90. That's the approximate number of preliminary injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, including the ones on Trump's birthright citizenship order that prompted the dispute at the Supreme Court. That number only includes injunctions, which keep a policy on hold while a case moves forward, and does not include quicker temporary restraining orders, which judges use to immediately block a policy while they deliberate on whether to issue a more lasting order. Judges have also issued numerous temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, which have similarly applied nationwide.
While the Supreme Court has only issued one ruling on the Trump administration's policies after hearing oral arguments, the court's quicker 'shadow docket' rulings have largely come out in favor of the president. The court has so far ruled 14 times on Trump administration policies, not including the birthright citizenship case. Of those, the 6-3 conservative court has ruled in the Trump administration's favor nine times, while only three cases have come out against him. Another two rulings have been mixed, with aspects of it both for and against Trump. That being said, Trump has still stewed over the Supreme Court justices he appointed in his first term not being as favorable to him as he hoped, CNN reported in early June, with anonymous sources saying the president has expressed 'particular ire' at Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Trump's birthright citizenship order was one of the first the president issued after his inauguration, after Trump long suggested he could take aim at the policy as part of his wider immigration crackdown. The executive order sparked a number of lawsuits and the first district and appeals court rulings of Trump's second terms, with judges broadly decrying Trump's effort to change the longstanding Constitutional protection. 'The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order,' Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling blocking the policy. As more court rulings against the president followed, with judges blocking other policies nationwide, the Trump administration and its allies increasingly started taking aim at judges, claiming they were abusing their authority to usurp the president's agenda and claiming judges have been harsher on Trump than courts were on other previous presidents. They also started specifically complaining about judges imposing orders that went beyond their districts: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt decried Judge James Boasberg for blocking the Trump administration from halting deportation flights to El Salvador, for instance, claiming, 'A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.' In addition to the Trump administration taking the issue to the Supreme Court, Trump's allies in Congress have also sought to solve the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, introducing legislation that would prohibit judges' ability to issue orders beyond the region their court covers. That bill is unlikely to become law, however, given it would need 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate.
Further Reading: Forbes Supreme Court Suggests It Won't Allow Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban—But Could Limit How Other Policies Can Be Blocked By Alison Durkee Forbes Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? What To Know After Judge Blocks Executive Order By Alison Durkee
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Group suing over Trump's birthright order seeks to convert case to a class action lawsuit
The Supreme Court's punt on a Louisiana redistricting case on Friday has injected uncertainty into the battle for the House, with one Democratic-held House seat in limbo as Republicans look to defend their razor-thin majority next year. The court on Friday delayed its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which would have determined whether one of the state's two majority-Black congressional districts was a racial gerrymander. The court — over the noted dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas — said the case will be reargued. The justices will likely hear the case in the fall when the court returns from its summer recess. Because of the state's election timeline, it isn't immediately clear what map will be in use for the midterms. Louisiana's primaries are currently scheduled for April. At first glance, redistricting experts and advocates thought that the court's choice to punt the decision means the current map will likely stay in place for the midterms. But the court has a bevy of options. It could rule quickly in the case — particularly if the court decides that lawmakers will need to draw new lines — to have new maps ready to go before April. The court could reschedule the primaries, although federal courts recently have been loath to do that. The justices could also rule to keep current maps in place for 2026 and later demand a redraw ahead of the 2028 elections. Advocates on both sides of the case were caught by surprise on Friday and are now waiting to see what questions the court will ask in its rehearing. Under the current election timeline, candidates can start collecting signatures for the April primary starting in September, likely before the court will have heard the case. If the court ultimately throws out the current map, the state's newest district, which is held by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.), would likely be redrawn to favor Republicans. Before Fields' district was created ahead of 2024 it was a safe red seat. The redraw would present an obvious pickup opportunity for the GOP ahead of the 2026 midterms. By not issuing a ruling on Friday, the court has continued the already long-running litigation over redistricting in Louisiana. After the 2020 census, the state legislature drew a congressional map that contained only one majority-Black district out of six total districts, despite the fact that Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. Courts struck down that map under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that abridge the right to vote on account of race. To comply with those court rulings, the Legislature drew a new map with two majority-Black districts. But some voters — who self-identified as not Black — sued over the new map, alleging the state had violated the constitutional rights of non-Black voters by carving up districts based on race.
CBS News
25 minutes ago
- CBS News
Watch Live: Trump praises Supreme Court decision limiting use of nationwide injunctions
President Trump praised the Supreme Court for its decision Friday limiting the ability of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions, calling it a "monumental victory for the Constitution." In comments at the White House, the president said Friday, "This morning, the Supreme Court has 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." The Supreme Court on Friday curbed the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges, a practice the president and his allies have railed against as blocking or hindering their agenda. In a 6-3 decision that stemmed from the president's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court said universal injunction orders likely exceeded the authority Congress has given the federal courts. Mr. Trump called the use of nationwide injunctions "a grave threat to democracy, frankly." Thanks to this decision, the president said the administration can "now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis," including his effort to end birthright citizenship. Attorney General Pam Bondi predicted the Supreme Court would "most likely" rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case during the next Supreme Court term, which begins this fall. Mr. Trump repeated a statement he often makes about birthright citizenship, a provision of the 14th Amendment, saying that it's no longer being used as it was originally intended. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said. "It was meant for the babies of slaves." The president thanked Barrett for writing the opinion "brilliantly," and also the justices who sided with her. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. 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," and the court's ruling means that "absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also applauded other Supreme Court rulings, including a decision Friday to allow parents in a Maryland school district to opt their children out of storybooks based on objections to their approach to gender and sexuality. "I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it's a great ruling for parents," the president said. The president addressed other topics beyond the Supreme Court rulings, too, including his administration's tariffs and his trade negotiations with other countries. Although the president indicated his administration is close to deals with several countries, he said at some point in the next week and a half, his administration will be sending letters to some countries "and tell them what they have to pay." On Iran, the president expressed support for any new agreement with Iran, including a provision that the International Atomic Energy Agency — or "somebody" approved by the U.S. — act as an independent inspector to examine Iranian nuclear facilities. At the NATO summit in the Netherlands earlier this week, the president said the U.S. would have talks with Iran "next week," but on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said there are currently no plans for formal talks or meetings. contributed to this report.
Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court redo on Louisiana redistricting injects uncertainty into battle for the House
The Supreme Court's punt on a Louisiana redistricting case on Friday has injected uncertainty into the battle for the House, with one Democratic-held House seat in limbo as Republicans look to defend their razor-thin majority next year. The court on Friday delayed its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which would have determined whether one of the state's two majority-Black congressional districts was a racial gerrymander. The court — over the noted dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas — said the case will be reargued. The justices will likely hear the case in the fall when the court returns from its summer recess. Because of the state's election timeline, it isn't immediately clear what map will be in use for the midterms. Louisiana's primaries are currently scheduled for April. At first glance, redistricting experts and advocates thought that the court's choice to punt the decision means the current map will likely stay in place for the midterms. But the court has a bevy of options. It could rule quickly in the case — particularly if the court decides that lawmakers will need to draw new lines — to have new maps ready to go before April. The court could reschedule the primaries, although federal courts recently have been loath to do that. The justices could also rule to keep current maps in place for 2026 and later demand a redraw ahead of the 2028 elections. Advocates on both sides of the case were caught by surprise on Friday and are now waiting to see what questions the court will ask in its rehearing. Under the current election timeline, candidates can start collecting signatures for the April primary starting in September, likely before the court will have heard the case. If the court ultimately throws out the current map, the state's newest district, which is held by Rep. Cleo Fields (D-La.), would likely be redrawn to favor Republicans. Before Fields' district was created ahead of 2024 it was a safe red seat. The redraw would present an obvious pickup opportunity for the GOP ahead of the 2026 midterms. By not issuing a ruling on Friday, the court has continued the already long-running litigation over redistricting in Louisiana. After the 2020 census, the state legislature drew a congressional map that contained only one majority-Black district out of six total districts, despite the fact that Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. Courts struck down that map under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that abridge the right to vote on account of race. To comply with those court rulings, the Legislature drew a new map with two majority-Black districts. But some voters — who self-identified as not Black — sued over the new map, alleging the state had violated the constitutional rights of non-Black voters by carving up districts based on race.
