{"id":19741,"date":"2025-06-27T18:31:18","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T18:31:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/19741\/"},"modified":"2025-06-27T18:31:18","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T18:31:18","slug":"trump-scores-major-win-in-birthright-citizenship-case-as-supreme-court-curbs-nationwide-injunctions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/19741\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump scores major win in birthright citizenship case as Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON \u2014\u00a0The US Supreme Court<\/a> ruled Friday that nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges \u201clikely exceed\u201d the judicial branch\u2019s constitutional authority \u2014 handing a major boost to President Trump\u2019s<\/a> push to end birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n

The case,\u00a0Trump v. CASA,\u00a0Inc.,\u00a0revolved around the administration\u2019s challenge\u00a0to\u00a0multiple\u00a0lower courts\u2019 sweeping\u00a0injunctions against the president\u2019s Day One order overturning the longstanding constitutional\u00a0protection.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump\u2019s actual order in\u00a0its opinion, only the extent to which\u00a0one of the nearly 700 district judges in the US could block an executive action from taking effect.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a big win in the high court\u2019s most closely watched case this term. ZUMAPRESS.com \/ MEGA<\/p>\n

Immigrant rights advocates and supporters of the Constitution rally as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in CASA v. Trump on May 15, 2025. Sue Dorfman\/ZUMA Press Wire \/ SplashNews.com<\/p>\n

At the White House, Trump called the ruling a \u201cmonumental victory for the Constitution\u201d and announced plans to advance his birthright citizenship order as well as other policies that have been blocked by federal courts.<\/p>\n

\u201c[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,\u201d conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett<\/a> wrote for the court\u2019s\u00a0majority.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Government\u2019s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted,\u201d Barrett wrote, \u201cbut only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nationwide injunctions have\u00a0frequently\u00a0been used by lower courts to stop executive actions from applying across the board rather than just granting relief to plaintiffs who sued.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s actions had been the subject of\u00a025 injunctions between the start of his term in January and the end of April, more than any other president over the same time period, according to data from the\u00a0Congressional Research Service<\/a>\u00a0and a\u00a0Harvard Law Review tally<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court decided on birthright citizenship. AP<\/p>\n

Justices from across the ideological spectrum have long raised concerns about lower courts overstepping their authority. But during oral arguments, the\u00a0nation\u2019s top\u00a0court\u00a0still\u00a0struggled over how or whether to draw the line.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Barrett wrote that universal injunctions lack \u201ca historical pedigree\u201d and were not authorized under the 1789 Judiciary Act.\u00a0But\u00a0she and other conservative justices in their concurring opinion seemingly suggested that class-action lawsuits are a viable tool that can be used against illegal presidential actions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Class-action suits require lawyers to go through a more rigorous\u00a0process to seek relief\u00a0than for cases brought by individuals.<\/p>\n

Olga Urbina carries baby Ares Webster as demonstrators rally as Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over Trump\u2019s bid to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. REUTERS<\/p>\n

\u201cThe class action is a powerful tool, and we have accordingly held that class \u2018certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis,’\u201d conservative Justice Samuel Alito noted\u00a0in his concurring opinion.<\/p>\n

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor <\/a>penned\u00a0the official dissent, which she read from the bench in a rare gesture of public\u00a0disagreement with her colleagues,\u00a0but it was the concurring dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson<\/a> that drew a rare rebuke from Barrett.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Jackson had agreed with Sotomayor\u2019s dissent but emphasized that the Trump administration\u2019s push to nix\u00a0nationwide injunctions was effectively a \u201crequest for this Court\u2019s permission to engage in unlawful behavior.<\/p>\n

Protestors gather in front of the Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, in Washington. Eric Kayne\/ZUMA \/ SplashNews.com<\/p>\n

\u201cQuite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly \u2018[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,\u2019\u00a0\u201d\u00a0Jackson\u00a0wrote. \u201cAt the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government\u2019s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe majority now does what none of the lower courts that have considered,\u201d she added. \u201cNotably, the Court has not determined that any of the lower courts were wrong about their conclusion that the executive order likely violates the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will not dwell on Justice Jackson\u2019s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries\u2019 worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,\u201d wrote Barrett in a jaw-dropping\u00a0rebuke of her colleague. \u201cWe observe only this:\u00a0Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump addressed the Supreme Court decisions in a press conference on Friday, June 27, 2025. AP<\/p>\n

\u201cWaving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a \u2018mind-numbingly technical query\u2019 \u2026 she offers a vision of\u00a0the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,\u201d Sotomayor warned. \u201cToday, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.\u201d<\/p>\n

Turning to Trump\u2019s order, Sotomayor raged that its \u201cpatent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority\u2019s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case. As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. AP<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Executive Branch has no right to enforce the Citizenship Order against anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s order contradicts the 14th Amendment<\/a>, which states that \u201c[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.\u201d<\/p>\n

The amendment, enacted after the Civil War, initially applied to the children of freed slaves. Trump and his allies have argued it should no longer apply to migrants who enter the US while several months pregnant to ensure their children enjoy the privileges\u00a0of citizenship, a practice known as \u201cbirth tourism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under his order, only children who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or is a permanent resident would be automatically granted citizenship.<\/p>\n

Trump scored a big win with the Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship. REUTERS<\/p>\n

Three federal judges in\u00a0Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state imposed\u00a0sweeping\u00a0injunctions halting the order from taking effect in response to lawsuits from plaintiffs including immigration groups and nearly two dozen states.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Trump v CASA\u00a0was the most high-profile\u00a0proceeding\u00a0before the Supreme Court this term, which has now wrapped up.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will convene for its next term Oct. 6.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON \u2014\u00a0The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges \u201clikely exceed\u201d the judicial…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":19742,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5122],"tags":[5229,69,405,403,5226,5225,5228,5227,80,278,67,586,132,5230,68,1154,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-19741","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-new-york","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-donald-trump","10":"tag-new-york","11":"tag-new-york-city","12":"tag-newyork","13":"tag-newyorkcity","14":"tag-ny","15":"tag-nyc","16":"tag-politics","17":"tag-supreme-court","18":"tag-united-states","19":"tag-united-states-of-america","20":"tag-unitedstates","21":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","22":"tag-us","23":"tag-us-news","24":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114756759365344613","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19741\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/19742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}