US Supreme Court limits judges from blocking Trump order on birthright citizenship

Middle East Eye

10 hours ago

The US Supreme Court has curbed the power of lower court judges to pause executive orders issued by US President Donald Trump, while hearing a case that looks to end the automatic granting of citizenship to people born in the country.
In its 6-3 ruling on Friday, which was ideologically divided with liberal judges dissenting against the ruling, the court said nationwide injunctions or pauses issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts".
The ruling sets a broader precedent that removes a roadblock standing in the way of Trump's often highly controversial executive orders and has far-reaching ramifications for the judiciary's capacity to rein in executive power.
The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to end "birthright citizenship", which is automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory.
Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, all children born in the US automatically become US citizens, but the Trump administration is looking to abolish that right.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Trump on Friday called the ruling a 'Giant Win' on Truth Social and organised a White House briefing on Friday to celebrate.
He hailed the decision a 'monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions interfering with the normal functions of the executive branch'.
Trump accused 'radical left judges' of 'a colossal abuse of power' which he said had only happened in 'recent decades'.
'We've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together,' he said.
Federal court judges have been instrumental in blocking many of Trump's executive orders and have been consistently criticised by the president.
'Profoundly dangerous'
The Trump administration maintains that 'birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country'.
During a White House briefing on Friday, attorney general Pam Bondi said that the birthright citizenship question will 'most likely' be decided by the Supreme Court in October.
In her dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the 'decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.
'Unprecedented crisis': 100 days of human rights under Trump Read More »
'The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. Until the day that every affected person manages to become party to a lawsuit and secures for himself injunctive relief, the Government may act lawlessly indefinitely.'
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed deep concern. "The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Brown Jackson said.
'The majority's ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'.
During the briefing, Trump also added he had 'numerous policies' that he could now proceed with, including 'ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries'.
Ramifications
Trump signed an executive order on 20 January to end automatic citizenship rights for people born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".
The highly controversial move was met with a series of lawsuits, which ultimately led to judges in district courts in three states issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect.
Trump's Department of Justice responded by taking the case to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the case was not about birthright citizenship directly, but whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.
Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government".
"The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights," Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognised in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognised for people who have not sued.
"This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law," he said.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.