Supreme Court curbs judges in birthright case as Trump touts win

A divided US Supreme Court on Friday curtailed the ability of federal judges to impose nationwide blocks on government policies but stopped short of fully resolving the legal battle over former President Donald Trump’s push to end automatic birthright citizenship.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship will remain on hold for at least 30 days. The justices sent three related cases back to lower courts to decide whether the policy should remain suspended longer — either nationwide or in select jurisdictions.

Trump welcomed the ruling, calling it a “monumental victory.” The decision, which limits the use of so-called nationwide injunctions, could strengthen Trump’s hand in defending other contested policies. He and his allies have long argued that a single federal judge should not have the authority to block government policies nationwide.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the court’s conservative majority. “They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”

The court’s liberal justices issued a strong dissent. “With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Rather than stand firm, the court gives way.”

While the legal fight continues in the lower courts, the Supreme Court said the administration may begin preparing to implement the birthright citizenship policy, including issuing public guidance.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said the ruling paves the way to revive several blocked policies. “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,” he said.

These include, he said, ending birthright citizenship, cutting off funding for sanctuary cities, halting refugee resettlement, freezing nonessential federal funding, and stopping federal funds.

14th amendment

Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order would jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. Trump would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder, meaning that even the newborn children of people on temporary visas wouldn’t become Americans.

The administration didn’t ask the court to directly consider the constitutionality of the executive order, focusing instead on nationwide injunctions — a practice that has roiled presidents from both parties over the years. The Supreme Court took the unusual step of hearing oral arguments on the emergency requests on May 15.

The executive order is being challenged by immigrant-rights organizations, affected individuals and 22 Democratic-run states, plus the District of Columbia. In each of the three cases, a federal appeals court refused to intervene after a trial judge blocked the executive order across the country.

Trump asked the high court to limit those rulings to particular people connected to the cases, or to the states and other jurisdictions that sued. 

Barrett said the nationwide orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

But she also said judges have power to give “complete relief” to suing parties, leaving open the possibility that lower court judges could block the policy in the jurisdictions that sued and possibly more broadly. 

The states, which are involved in two of the suits, say they would receive less federal aid if the policy took effect because many programs apply only to citizens. And the states say letting the restrictions take effect in neighboring jurisdictions would be unworkable given that children often move across state lines.

Barrett said the lower courts should consider whether there are ways to address those issues short of a nationwide block on the policy. She didn’t resolve the administration’s separate argument that the states lacked legal standing to sue at all.

She also left open the possibility that, at least in some cases, individuals could use class action suits to seek far-reaching court orders.

Critics say Trump is trying to unilaterally overturn part of the 14th Amendment, which confers citizenship on anyone who is born in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 

The Supreme Court said in 1898 that the provision covered a man born in California to two Chinese parents, and the court reinforced that decision in a 1982 ruling backing the right of undocumented immigrants to attend public school. Congress has enacted similar guarantees by statute.

Trump’s executive order is being challenged by immigrant-rights organisations, affected individuals and Democratic-run states. In each of the three cases, a federal appeals court refused to intervene after a trial judge blocked the executive order.