Posted on Jun 30, 2025
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship...
1.44K
112
40
20
20
0
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s request to partially pause rulings by three federal judges that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship – that is, the guarantee of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States. By a vote of 6-3, the justices repudiated the concept of universal or nationwide injunctions, which prohibit the government from enforcing a law or policy anywhere in the country. The justices did not, however, weigh in on the question at the center of the three lawsuits before the court: whether the birthright citizenship order itself is constitutional.
The Trump administration will also likely continue to be barred from enforcing the order – which will not go into effect for 30 days – against the individual pregnant plaintiffs who had challenged it. But the court’s opinion, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, left open the prospect of additional litigation in the lower courts about how much more the injunctions should be narrowed, as well as the possibility of class action litigation to challenge the order on behalf of groups of plaintiffs who were not part of the litigation before the court but would be affected by the order.
The Trump administration will also likely continue to be barred from enforcing the order – which will not go into effect for 30 days – against the individual pregnant plaintiffs who had challenged it. But the court’s opinion, by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, left open the prospect of additional litigation in the lower courts about how much more the injunctions should be narrowed, as well as the possibility of class action litigation to challenge the order on behalf of groups of plaintiffs who were not part of the litigation before the court but would be affected by the order.
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship...
Posted from scotusblog.com
Supreme Court
Citizenship
Constitution
Posted 7 mo ago
Responses: 7
SCOTUS has a long history of remanding cases back to the Appellate level when they can, but in this case, they followed the specifics of the applications before them. The applications that came before SCOTUS were regarding the injunction, NOT whether or not the EO violated the Constitution (that's still working it's way through the courts).
From the Supreme Court's decision*, "The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions."
Universal injunctions (i.e., nationwide injunctions) by a District Court have never sat well with me. There's a reason that both sides judge shop at the lower level. There's a reason, most of the time, liberals run to the 1st Circuit Court when they want to stop something and conservatives run to the 5th District when they want to stop something.
As Justice Kagan stated while speaking at Northwestern in 2022, "in in recent years some district courts have issued nationwide injunctions, and this happened in the Trump administration and it has also happened in the Biden administration so this has no political tilt to it, but some district courts have, you know, very quickly issued nationwide injunctions to stop a policy in its tracks that . . . the President and/or Congress has determined to be the national policy, and it just one district court stops it, and then you combine that with the ability of people to forum shop to go to a particular district court where they think that that will be the result and you look at something like that and you think that can't be right that one district court, whether it's in you know in the Trump years people used to go to the Northern District of California and in the Biden years they go to Texas, and it just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through normal process."
Biden/Obama/etc. were law-breaking Presidents that trampled on people's Constitutional rights. How do we know? Because a District Court issued a nationwide injunction. By the same token, Trump/Bush/etc. were law-breaking Presidents that trampled on people's Constitutional rights. How do we know? Because a District Court issued a nationwide injunction.
Partisans will say, "This one here is different than that one over there because..." and then try to latch onto one specific element that explains why the courts are wrong when they did it for one but right when they did it for another (to be fair, there are some limited cases where they ARE different, but those are in the minority).
Partisans conveniently ignore when 'their side' is hypocritical.
Zealots refuse to believe that 'their side' could be hypocritical.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* Supreme Court Decision , Trump vs. CASA - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
From the Supreme Court's decision*, "The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions."
Universal injunctions (i.e., nationwide injunctions) by a District Court have never sat well with me. There's a reason that both sides judge shop at the lower level. There's a reason, most of the time, liberals run to the 1st Circuit Court when they want to stop something and conservatives run to the 5th District when they want to stop something.
As Justice Kagan stated while speaking at Northwestern in 2022, "in in recent years some district courts have issued nationwide injunctions, and this happened in the Trump administration and it has also happened in the Biden administration so this has no political tilt to it, but some district courts have, you know, very quickly issued nationwide injunctions to stop a policy in its tracks that . . . the President and/or Congress has determined to be the national policy, and it just one district court stops it, and then you combine that with the ability of people to forum shop to go to a particular district court where they think that that will be the result and you look at something like that and you think that can't be right that one district court, whether it's in you know in the Trump years people used to go to the Northern District of California and in the Biden years they go to Texas, and it just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through normal process."
Biden/Obama/etc. were law-breaking Presidents that trampled on people's Constitutional rights. How do we know? Because a District Court issued a nationwide injunction. By the same token, Trump/Bush/etc. were law-breaking Presidents that trampled on people's Constitutional rights. How do we know? Because a District Court issued a nationwide injunction.
Partisans will say, "This one here is different than that one over there because..." and then try to latch onto one specific element that explains why the courts are wrong when they did it for one but right when they did it for another (to be fair, there are some limited cases where they ARE different, but those are in the minority).
Partisans conveniently ignore when 'their side' is hypocritical.
Zealots refuse to believe that 'their side' could be hypocritical.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* Supreme Court Decision , Trump vs. CASA - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
(15)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
LTC Kevin B. - I disagree that the rebuke rings hollow. To you, it may ring hollow, but to the 677 judges in the 94 judicial districts it does not.
I agree that if the Supreme Court had expanded the scope beyond the case in front of it to include the larger question of birthright citizenship it would have at least given a settled answer.
I agree that if the Supreme Court had expanded the scope beyond the case in front of it to include the larger question of birthright citizenship it would have at least given a settled answer.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Sir, I feel your arguments are very non-partisan and greatly appreciate what and how you write. Differences of opinion will not ruin this country, allowing areas that should be non-partisan such as justice and science become partisan does damage everyday.
(3)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
COL Randall Cudworth - To the ~250,000+ plus people born in the US every year without citizenship, this does ring hollow. I bet they'd like this question definitively settled, and not having it kicked down the road because the SCOTUS is too timid to address the main underlying issue.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
LTC Kevin B. - Being disappointed they didn't exceed the scope is one thing, but attributing partisan descriptions to the Court because they didn't exceed the scope of the case before them is another.
In your earlier statement, you commented that this isn't the big win that many on RallyPoint are pointing to. I agree. The Supreme Court stayed the President's EO regarding birthright citizenship for 30 days to pursue a proper pathway to a universal injunction.
There are class-action lawsuits being created right now, and if certified, WOULD enable a universal injunction to be issued under the framework of the Court's decision, which is significantly different than a District Court taking the existing plaintiff(s) and expanding the scope far beyond their jurisdiction.
IMHO this would be the correct way as it would consolidate the different lawsuits* and give finality to a decision instead of a potential hodgepodge of decisions. No, it won't give the certainty to those included in the class (which will probably be everyone except children of diplomats, etc.) until it works its way through the court system, but like it or not, that is the way the courts function.
-------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. Judicial Panel on multidistrict Litigation - https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/
In your earlier statement, you commented that this isn't the big win that many on RallyPoint are pointing to. I agree. The Supreme Court stayed the President's EO regarding birthright citizenship for 30 days to pursue a proper pathway to a universal injunction.
There are class-action lawsuits being created right now, and if certified, WOULD enable a universal injunction to be issued under the framework of the Court's decision, which is significantly different than a District Court taking the existing plaintiff(s) and expanding the scope far beyond their jurisdiction.
IMHO this would be the correct way as it would consolidate the different lawsuits* and give finality to a decision instead of a potential hodgepodge of decisions. No, it won't give the certainty to those included in the class (which will probably be everyone except children of diplomats, etc.) until it works its way through the court system, but like it or not, that is the way the courts function.
-------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. Judicial Panel on multidistrict Litigation - https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eDzqtH7yxCwk49NDA
The Left will be wild in the streets! I saw them at Cypress College in March of 1985.
https://youtu.be/1qbNrzHCMnM?si=VHwV-_hmql9P3kIG
COL Randall Cudworth LTC Marc King LTC Marc King LTC Kevin B. LTC Trent Klug
The Left will be wild in the streets! I saw them at Cypress College in March of 1985.
https://youtu.be/1qbNrzHCMnM?si=VHwV-_hmql9P3kIG
COL Randall Cudworth LTC Marc King LTC Marc King LTC Kevin B. LTC Trent Klug
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
I honestly think that this was the right ruling.
Rulings from district courts and circuit courts only hold legal precedent in those districts or circuits. It only makes sense that an injunctions issued at those levels only impact the district or circuit its made in.
Rulings from district courts and circuit courts only hold legal precedent in those districts or circuits. It only makes sense that an injunctions issued at those levels only impact the district or circuit its made in.
(6)
(0)
LTC David Brown
Kegan in an interview agreed with you, but when it came to an actual vote voted ideologically.
(2)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
LTC David Brown Im not shocked that a Supreme Court judge would talk out both sides of her mouth.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google