Today's News: Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, Impacts Birthright Citizenship Order

While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship policy itself, it sent cases back to lower courts to narrow the scope of their injunctions.

Terrence Dorsey

Jun 27, 2025

Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post

Thanks for reading The Newsie Project! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Date: June 27, 2025
Topic: Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, Impacts Birthright Citizenship Order
Summary: The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ideologically split decision on June 27, 2025, significantly limited the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that temporarily block executive orders. This ruling is a major victory for the Trump administration, which has seen many of its policies, including a controversial executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship, halted by such injunctions. While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship policy itself, it sent cases back to lower courts to narrow the scope of their injunctions, potentially allowing the policy to take effect in states that have not challenged it. Dissenting justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, strongly criticized the decision, warning of its negative implications for the rule of law and access to justice.

Sources

Key Points

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ideologically divided decision, significantly limited the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide (or universal) injunctions that block executive branch policies across the entire country.
The ruling is considered a major victory for the Trump administration, which has frequently seen its executive orders stymied by such broad injunctions.
The Court did not rule on the underlying constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship; the decision focused solely on the scope of judicial remedies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, asserting that federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch and that universal injunctions likely exceed the power granted to them by Congress.
The decision sends the cases back to lower courts to narrow the scope of their injunctions, potentially allowing the birthright citizenship policy to take effect in states that have not challenged it.
Dissenting liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed strong opposition, warning that the ruling could undermine the rule of law and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
The practice of nationwide injunctions has been a subject of long-standing debate, with critics arguing they encourage “judge-shopping” and circumvent the political process, while proponents see them as a necessary tool to provide immediate, consistent relief.

Unique Highlights

The New York Times details the history of birthright citizenship, including the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case which affirmed the right, and notes that Trump’s views on ending it have been considered “legal fringe” and pushed by scholars connected to the Claremont Institute.
CNN highlights that the ruling came after President Trump had privately “griped” about Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her prior rulings, suggesting this decision could improve his view of her. It also includes analysis from CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, who states that while the ruling “nominally allows” the birthright citizenship order, its greater importance lies in making it harder for litigants to challenge other Trump policies generally.
NBC News uniquely states that the policy remains blocked for now in New Hampshire as a result of a separate lawsuit not before the Supreme Court.
Fox News quotes Justice Amy Coney Barrett stating that Congress has granted federal courts no such power for universal injunctions as an exercise of equitable authority. It also provides examples of other Trump policies previously blocked by federal judges, such as his ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military.
The Washington Post highlights that the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship ban is part of a broader set of initiatives to dramatically restrict immigration, including travel bans, fast-track deportations, and suspension of refugee admissions.
The Wall Street Journal provides a specific statistic from the Migration Policy Institute, stating that Trump’s policy would deny citizenship to an average of 255,000 babies born annually in the U.S. to unauthorized immigrants or temporary visa holders. It also mentions that during former President Joe Biden’s administration, judges in conservative districts blocked policies, including COVID-19 vaccine requirements and his student-debt forgiveness plan, providing a counter-example to Trump’s complaints about injunctions.

Contrasting Details

While CNN and The Washington Post both state that the decision “signaled that the president’s controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced” (CNN) or “leaves open a path for challengers to try to continue to block the president’s policy” (The Washington Post), NBC News states the ruling “means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not.” The New York Times also states the order would be set to take effect in 30 days in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure, suggesting a more immediate impact on the birthright citizenship policy’s implementation.
The Wall Street Journal notes that Justice Amy Coney Barrett “left open the possibility that Trump’s birthright policy could be blocked nationwide under lawsuits brought by New Jersey and other state governments rather than pregnant women concerned about their future children’s status,” detailing a specific avenue for continued nationwide blocking that is not explicitly highlighted in other articles.
Fox News describes the ruling as granting a “partial stay” and a “partial victory” for the administration, whereas other sources like The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal generally characterize it as a “major win” or a significant limitation on injunctions without explicitly using the term “partial stay” or “partial victory” in their main summaries, though the nuances of the ruling imply a degree of partiality.

The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.

This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).

The Newsie Project