The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a closely watched ruling related to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. While the decision did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, it significantly narrowed the power of federal judges to block it nationwide.
The ruling opens the door for the Trump administration to begin preparing for the policy’s rollout—but leaves major legal and logistical questions unanswered.
Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, Avoids Constitutionality Ruling
The court’s conservative majority ruled that lower federal courts overstepped in issuing broad, nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive order. The justices emphasized that such court orders should apply only to the plaintiffs in the cases, not to the entire country.
However, the court pointedly declined to rule on whether Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which has long guaranteed U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Three federal district courts have suggested the policy clearly conflicts with constitutional precedent, but the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in.
Still, in the absence of nationwide blocks, the administration now has a clearer legal path to implement the order—at least in the 28 states that haven’t joined the lawsuits against it.
Implementation Begins—But With Unanswered Questions
Trump’s order includes a 30-day grace period before taking effect, meaning birthright citizenship remains intact—for now. But preparations for enforcement can begin immediately.
How the policy will be enforced remains murky. When asked whether hospitals will require pregnant women to bring passports or whether medical staff will be tasked with determining citizenship status, the White House offered no specifics.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, pressed repeatedly on Friday for clarity, acknowledged the issue is “still pending litigation” and deflected questions about whether undocumented babies would be subject to immigration enforcement.
Ongoing Legal Battles
Courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire must now revise their earlier nationwide injunctions to apply only to the specific plaintiffs—22 states, several advocacy groups, and individual pregnant women.
Even with those changes, litigation over the executive order’s legality is far from over. One immigrant rights group has already filed a new class-action lawsuit seeking broader protections for all pregnant noncitizens, not just those involved in the initial suits.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, noted that future legal challenges could also target the administration’s eventual implementation rules under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Next Steps for Nationwide Injunctions
Beyond the birthright citizenship case, the ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for how lower courts handle injunctions in other high-profile legal battles. Trump administration officials said they plan to quickly pursue the rollback of nationwide injunctions affecting a range of controversial policies.
“These injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs,” Bondi said Friday. “Judges have tried to seize executive power—and they cannot do that anymore.”
President Trump, celebrating the decision at a news event, listed a slate of stalled policies he expects to revive now that nationwide injunctions have been curtailed.
“Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly move forward with policies wrongly blocked across the country,” Trump said. “That includes ending birthright citizenship, cutting sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary programs, and stopping taxpayer funding for transgender surgeries—just to name a few.”
The full impact of the court’s ruling will unfold in the coming weeks, as new regulations are drafted, lawsuits continue, and the country inches closer to the 30-day deadline for Trump’s order to take effect.
