Donald Trump is celebrating what he has termed a “giant win” following a pivotal ruling by the US Supreme Court that limits the power of federal judges to block presidential executive orders. The court’s decision, issued with a 6-3 majority on Friday, pertains to Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at altering birthright citizenship, a policy that would deny automatic US citizenship to children born in the country to undocumented immigrants.
At a White House press conference, Trump hailed the ruling as a triumph over “radical left judges,” whom he accused of posing “a great threat to democracy.” However, the decision, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, does not immediately implement Trump’s policy, nor does it address its legality.
The Court’s Decision and Its Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the scope of three nationwide injunctions previously issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. These injunctions had halted the enforcement of Trump’s directive while litigation challenging the policy continues. The court’s conservative majority specified that the executive order cannot take effect until 30 days post-ruling.
“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Justice Barrett noted. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court’s other liberal members, criticized the majority for sidestepping the constitutionality of Trump’s order, focusing instead on the judiciary’s power to issue universal injunctions. She argued that the order’s apparent unlawfulness underscores the necessity of such injunctions.
“The majority ignores entirely whether the President’s executive order is constitutional,” Sotomayor wrote. “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the Government makes no attempt to hide it.”
Background and Legal Context
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the US unless they have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. This policy, if enacted, would affect over 150,000 newborns annually, according to plaintiffs, including Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates.
The case presented to the Supreme Court was unusual, as the administration argued that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, requesting the justices to rule in favor of enforcing the directive without assessing its legal merits.
The plaintiffs contended that Trump’s directive violates the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which guarantees citizenship to all “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The administration, however, argues that this does not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
Historical Parallels and Future Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision is part of a broader trend of rulings favoring Trump’s immigration policies since his return to office. Recently, the court allowed the administration to resume deportations to countries other than migrants’ home nations and to end temporary legal status for certain migrants.
However, the court has also blocked some of Trump’s more aggressive policies, such as deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a rarely used 1798 law. The administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which is traditionally seen as securing citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizen parents, remains a contentious topic.
Proponents of universal injunctions argue they are a necessary check on presidential overreach, having been used against actions deemed unlawful by presidents from both parties.
As the legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over executive power and judicial authority. The ruling may set a precedent for how future administrations approach the balance of power between the branches of government.
