Understanding the Supreme Court’s ‘Universal Injunctions’ Ruling: Impacts on Birthright Citizenship Explained – FactCheck.org

On June 27, the Supreme Court made a significant decision regarding birthright citizenship. They partially supported the Trump administration’s request to pause nationwide injunctions preventing an executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals born in the U.S. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, voiced in the ruling that “universal injunctions” from district judges go beyond what Congress allows federal courts to do.

Previously, lower courts issued these injunctions after agreeing with plaintiffs who contended Trump’s January 20 executive order violated the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, was originally meant to secure citizenship for freed slaves and has since been the foundation for automatically granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

Trump’s order states that the citizenship clause does not cover children born to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas. While the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the order’s constitutionality, they decided that the injunctions were too broad, meaning that district judges can no longer issue blanket protections for everyone in the country, only for those specifically challenging government action.

In a press conference, Trump celebrated the ruling as a major win for the Constitution. He argued that some judges were overstepping their bounds and interfering with presidential powers. Historically, similar nationwide injunctions have been used against policies from both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Moving forward, Barrett noted that Trump’s executive order, affecting children born after February 19, 2025, could start working 30 days post-decision. However, there’s uncertainty about how this order will be implemented. During the press conference, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi referred to ongoing litigation and did not clarify any enforcement plans.

Although the court’s ruling doesn’t address the executive order’s legality outright, it opens the door for plaintiffs to potentially file class-action lawsuits to challenge the government’s policies on a broader scale. Following the ruling, advocacy groups quickly refiled their lawsuits in Maryland and New Hampshire, looking to block the order as a united front.

Experts like law professor Samuel Bray suggest that judges may continue to reject the government’s arguments regarding birthright citizenship. He believes Trump’s order may ultimately never take effect. Yet, if class-action lawsuits face hurdles, some children born in the U.S. might not automatically receive citizenship.

Professor Amanda Frost warned that this could lead to a disjointed citizenship system, where different states might have different rules on citizenship based on where a child is born. Given the interconnected nature of American states, this could create confusion and inconsistency in citizenship rights.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court’s ruling has opened new avenues for challenging the executive order, the road ahead remains uncertain. The potential for a patchwork approach to citizenship highlights the complexities that could arise as litigation unfolds.

Source link