By Mary Campbell

WASHINGTON, D.C: In a landmark ruling that narrows the power of the federal judiciary and leaves unresolved a critical constitutional issue, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, June 27, that lower courts may no longer issue nationwide injunctions—decisions that had often blocked federal policies from taking effect nationwide. The case, Trump v. CASA, also centered around the Trump administration’s controversial Executive Order 14160, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or non-citizen parents.

Judicial Restraint on Nationwide Injunctions

By a 6–3 vote, the Court’s conservative majority held that district courts may only issue injunctive relief binding on the parties before them—not the entire nation. The ruling represents a dramatic rollback of a legal tool long used to pause sweeping federal policies while courts evaluated their constitutionality.

In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that “the role of the judiciary is to resolve concrete disputes—not to dictate national policy from a single courtroom.” Critics say the decision could lead to legal fragmentation, where policies apply differently nationwide, and vulnerable populations lose a vital shield against unconstitutional executive actions.

Also writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized such sweeping judicial orders, stating, “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Birthright Citizenship Left Unsettled

Despite addressing Executive Order 14160—which reinterprets the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—the Court avoided directly ruling on whether children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents are guaranteed citizenship. The justices instead held that the question must continue to be litigated in lower courts across multiple jurisdictions.

That ambiguity has sown confusion nationwide. Federal judges in at least four districts had blocked enforcement of EO 14160 earlier this year, citing constitutional concerns. However, with the Court’s ruling, those blocks now only apply to plaintiffs in the respective cases, not the broader public—leaving other children at risk of being denied citizenship.

Reactions Across the Political Spectrum

President Donald Trump celebrated the decision during a White House press briefing just minutes after it was issued. “This was a big decision,” he said. “An amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.” He reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to ending the “abuse” of the Citizenship Clause, which he and advisor Stephen Miller have long targeted as central to reshaping American immigration law.

However, immigration advocates and civil rights organizations condemned the ruling as a dangerous step toward authoritarianism and racial exclusion.

“Like most Americans, I’ve always believed the U.S. was a place where our Constitutional rights were guaranteed—where citizenship, especially constitutionally enshrined birthright citizenship, was sacred and protected,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, Executive Director of America’s Voice.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision not only weakens the judicial branch and its essential role as a check and balance against executive overreach but also threatens to unravel the very promise that a child born in America is American. If the Trump Administration succeeds, millions of children born on U.S. soil will be stateless.”

Cárdenas characterized the ruling as part of a broader strategy to redefine who counts as American. “Make no mistake: this is part of the Trump-Miller agenda… It’s a dangerous erosion of our rights and a dangerous expansion of Trump’s imperial power, with serious implications far beyond immigration and birthright citizenship,” she warned.

Legal and Political Implications

While the ruling technically leaves birthright citizenship intact—for now—it effectively greenlights Executive Order 14160 to be enforced piecemeal wherever injunctions have not been secured. Legal experts predict this will trigger a flood of new litigation, creating uneven citizenship rights across state lines.

The ruling could result in American-born children of undocumented parents having different legal statuses depending on where they’re born. That’s unprecedented—and likely unconstitutional.

Legislators on Capitol Hill are already responding. Some hailed the ruling as “long overdue judicial humility,” while other leaders have called for legislation to explicitly protect birthright citizenship and restore the scope of judicial injunctions.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA sets the stage for a new era of legal battles over who is entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizenship. Immigration is once again at the center of national debate, and the issue of birthright citizenship is poised to become a defining fault line in 2025 and beyond.