How the US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship could impact immigrants

US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions

The US Supreme Court ruled limited the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, paving the way for President Donald Trump’s contested move to end birthright citizenship to take effect in more than half of the country.

In a significant ruling, the Court directed lower courts to reconsider the breadth of their injunctions in a case challenging Trump's policy on birthright citizenship.

The decision does not settle the constitutionality of the order but permits its enforcement in 28 states that did not contest it, while temporarily maintaining blocks in 22 states governed by Democrats.

Let's take closer at how it will affect what it means for immigrants - 

Immigrant rights groups are shifting their legal approaches, preparing class-action lawsuits in states such as Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts caution that these efforts will likely encounter significant procedural challenges.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,” said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.

An immediate concern is the status of babies born during the transitional phase. In the 28 states where the executive order could soon be enforced, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, raising fears of statelessness and potential deportation, according to the Times of India.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called on lower courts to “act swiftly” in evaluating new legal challenges to the order, while President Trump signaled readiness to advance other policies previously held up by nationwide injunctions.

“This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” Trump said at the White House, standing alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.”

What is the verdict? 

According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, any child born on U.S. soil automatically receives citizenship, regardless of the parents' immigration status.

In essence, the Court ruled that a single judge should not have the authority to prevent the implementation of a federal policy across the entire country during the preliminary stages of litigation.

This ruling allows Trump’s policy to be implemented in certain states while legal challenges proceed. It could be halted later if class-action lawsuits or state-level legal actions are successful.

Led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court’s conservative majority concluded that district courts lack the authority to impose nationwide blocks on executive policies. “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote.

The decision returns the case to lower courts, directing them to limit the scope of their injunctions to the plaintiffs in the 22 states that filed suit. In the remaining 28 states - such as Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas - Trump’s order could take effect following a 30-day delay.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, described the ruling as “nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.”

(With agency inputs)