What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today

Economic Times

27-06-2025

US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come.
US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight?
Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US?
Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision:
Birthright citizenship explained
Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens.
The Trump Executive Order
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment.
The lawsuit and injunction
Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country.
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions
In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation.
A procedural, not constitutional, decision
Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation.
The 30-day window
The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case.
Liberal dissent
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed.
Impact on future litigation
This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases.
Trump hails the ruling
President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda.
What's next?
While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away.
What do dissenting justices say about this change?
How does this ruling expand presidential power?
What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship?
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
What's the broader impact of the ruling?
Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing
FAQs:
In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes next.Birthright citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Constitution.After Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their authority.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for everyone.Yes—for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not years.Justice Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the lawsuit.The Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly reviewed.They argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already impacted.President Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the courts.Since his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election laws.This ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play out.While the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.In the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's policy.Justice Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are proven.This ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to operate.The Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive actions.This decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch up.The Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive power.The next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from over.The Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court blocks.Yes, but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.