Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speculated Sunday that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling limiting nationwide injunctions may have been a strategic compromise, made after the justices failed to reach consensus on the larger constitutional question of birthright citizenship.
In an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Gonzales—who served under President George W. Bush—acknowledged he had no inside information, but said the Court’s decision to sidestep the central issue raised in Trump v. CASA seemed telling.
“It’s possible they took the case intending to decide the substantive issue,” Gonzales said. “But once they saw there weren’t five votes either way, they settled on narrowing nationwide injunctions instead.”
Why It Matters
At the heart of the dispute is President Donald Trump’s February executive order to end birthright citizenship—currently guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Trump argues that the clause has been misapplied and that the federal government can restrict citizenship rights through executive action. Legal challenges quickly followed, and multiple federal judges blocked the order from taking effect using nationwide injunctions.
While Trump v. CASA raised both the citizenship issue and the broader legal question about the authority of federal judges to issue such sweeping injunctions, the Supreme Court opted only to address the latter.
What the Court Decided
In a 6–3 ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court sharply limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that apply broadly, not just to the parties in a case. The ruling effectively scales back a powerful legal tool used to freeze executive actions.
However, the Court deferred ruling on the constitutional merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order. That question will likely return to the docket when the Court’s new session begins in October.
Gonzales believes this was no coincidence.
“If they couldn’t secure five votes either way on the citizenship issue,” he said, “the justices may have decided the only way to release an opinion was to avoid that question entirely.”
Deadlock Behind the Curtain?
Asked whether he thought the Court was split on birthright citizenship, Gonzales replied, “It seems obvious to me.” He added that the opinion suggests a deliberate effort to carve off a narrower ruling on injunctions while postponing a deeper constitutional fight.
Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, speaking at the same event, added:
“If we don’t have five votes on this issue, that’s a serious concern for the country.”
Legal analysts note that when the Court is unable to form a majority around a controversial issue, justices sometimes reach narrower or procedural compromises to avoid a 4–4 deadlock or a fractured ruling.
CNN’s Joan Biskupic has chronicled such internal bargaining before. In her book Nine Black Robes, she detailed how Chief Justice John Roberts and former Justice Anthony Kennedy struck strategic compromises on gay rights rulings, shaping case outcomes by pairing decisions in ways that balanced competing priorities within the Court.
Roberts Responds to Criticism
Speaking over the weekend at a judicial conference, Chief Justice Roberts addressed public frustration over contentious rulings.
“It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judges’ fault that the correct reading of the law leads to an unpopular outcome,” Roberts said. “Criticism is fine—but often people only care about who won or lost, not how the Court got there.”
Reactions to the Ruling
President Trump celebrated the ruling as a major legal win—even though the Court didn’t address his birthright citizenship order directly.
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard.”
Meanwhile, legal scholars remain divided.
Professor Samuel Bray argued the order was clearly unconstitutional:
“Today’s ruling reaffirms proper limits on judicial power, but Trump’s executive order won’t survive—it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment.”
By contrast, conservative legal scholar John Eastman said the dissenting justices distorted the legal debate:
“The claim that Trump’s order is ‘patently unconstitutional’ is just false. My brief lays out exactly why.”
What’s Next
The Supreme Court is widely expected to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship when its next term begins in October. Legal observers believe the administration will refile and reshape the case in the hope of securing a clearer ruling.
For now, the fate of Trump’s executive order remains uncertain, but the legal battle over citizenship—and the broader limits of presidential power—appears far from over.
