Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions 6-3 in birthright citizenship case

On Jun. 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision limiting federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, focusing on procedural authority rather than the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

The Court left Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship blocked for 30 days to allow new legal challenges.

Within two hours of the decision, civil rights groups (including the ACLU, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project) filed class-action lawsuits seeking nationwide protection for children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, and their parents.

Twenty-two Democratic-led states originally sued to challenge Trump’s birthright citizenship order under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, calling the decision a “travesty for the rule of law.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a solo dissent warning the ruling creates “an existential threat to the rule of law.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence noted that class-action lawsuits could serve as a “workaround” to obtain broad relief.

Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that lax enforcement of class-action certification rules could undercut the ruling’s limits on nationwide injunctions.

The majority opinion relied on the historical observation that nationwide injunctions were “conspicuously nonexistent” in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) remains the controlling precedent establishing birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal experts predict Trump’s birthright citizenship order will likely remain blocked because its constitutionality has not been resolved and faces strong Fourteenth Amendment arguments.