Supreme Court Rules on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order, Testing Lower Court Powers

• The U.S. Supreme Court has sharply limited the power of lower federal courts to issue universal injunctions, marking a significant win for President Donald Trump
• The 6-3 ruling refrains from addressing the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial birthright citizenship order but reshapes the legal landscape around judicial authority
• The verdict is expected to reverberate through hundreds of pending lawsuits, redefining how federal policies can be challenged in court

In a significant legal triumph for President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling that restricts the power of lower federal courts to impose universal injunctions, a legal mechanism that had frequently disrupted the implementation of his administration’s executive orders.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices determined that federal district courts may only issue injunctions in limited circumstances, a move that upends recent precedent.

The Court stopped short of ruling on the constitutionality of the underlying executive order on birthright citizenship that prompted the case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, clarified the ruling’s narrow scope: “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”

She concluded, “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.”

The ruling stemmed from three consolidated cases where federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state had blocked the nationwide enforcement of Trump’s executive order to ban birthright citizenship.

The Trump administration challenged these orders, labelling them as overreach.

Court avoids constitutional debate on birthright citizenship

Despite being the order at the heart of the litigation, the Court declined to weigh in on the legality of the birthright citizenship ban. Instead, it instructed the lower courts to revise existing injunctions to ensure they comply with equity principles and granted a 30-day stay on enforcement.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, offered a stark warning: “The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully.”

In her own dissent, Justice Jackson stressed that the ruling “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular… beholden to the Executive’s whims.”

Long-term legal ramifications expected

The Court’s decision is likely to have a profound impact on U.S. district courts and the more than 300 lawsuits filed during Trump’s second term, many of which have sought to block his executive actions.

Legal experts anticipate a reshuffling of judicial strategy as district judges are now curtailed in their ability to issue sweeping relief.

During oral arguments held on 15 May, justices wrestled with the complexities of the issue, debating whether existing judicial norms granted lower courts the authority to universally halt federal policies. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asserted that such injunctions “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” and risk “inverting the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review.”

Political reactions and public statements

President Trump celebrated the verdict on social media, calling it a “GIANT WIN” and asserting, “Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard.” He praised Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the Department of Justice for their role in the case and announced plans for a press conference.

Bondi echoed the victory, stating, “Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump.”

While some liberal justices warned that the ruling could unleash executive overreach, conservative members such as Justice Clarence Thomas remained critical of the broad use of universal injunctions, reinforcing the ideological divide.

As debates continue over the practical implications of this decision, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court’s judgement has redrawn the boundaries of judicial power in modern America.

Speaking with Legit.ng, AbdulRasheed Hussaini, a public expert based in Nigeria, analysed the implications of the ruling:

“From a policy standpoint, this ruling could have far-reaching implications. It curtails a key legal tool that civil rights groups, states, and advocacy organizations have used to halt controversial executive actions before they take effect. By requiring challenges to proceed on a more localized or case-by-case basis, the decision may slow down judicial checks on federal overreach and increase the burden on affected individuals to seek relief independently.”

President Trump sacks 20 judges in US

Legit.ng earlier reported that the Trump administration dismissed 20 immigration judges without explanation amid sweeping moves to shrink the size of the federal government, a union official reported on February 15.

The dismissals occurred on February 14, affecting 13 judges who had yet to be sworn in and five assistant chief immigration judges, according to Matthew Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, which represents federal workers.

Source: Legit.ng