The Supreme Court delivered a major win for Donald Trump—and potentially future presidents—on Friday by limiting the authority of lower courts to block executive orders. At a press briefing in the White House, the President expressed his delight, labeling the ruling a “big, amazing decision” and a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.”
This landmark decision not only affects Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship but also empowers him to pursue various other policy initiatives that have faced challenges from similar injunctions.
Impact on Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court has paved the way for the Trump administration to reconsider the automatic granting of citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil—at least for the time being. The White House now faces the complex task of implementing this plan. On Friday, the court allowed Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship to take effect in a month’s time, while still permitting lower courts to address potential challenges from individuals with standing to sue.
Typically, states are responsible for issuing birth certificates, and many do not document the citizenship status of parents. Democratic-controlled state governments are unlikely to expedite any changes to align with the Trump administration’s objectives. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote for the majority, indicated that states could argue for broader restrictions on Trump’s birthright citizenship initiative in the future.
Significant legal disputes are on the horizon.
According to Justice Barrett, the states argue that their financial injuries and the administrative burdens stemming from citizen-dependent benefits programs cannot be addressed without a complete ban on enforcing the Executive Order. Barrett noted, “The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments.”
President Trump hailed the court’s decision on Friday as a “giant win,” asserting that the so-called “birthright citizenship hoax” has been “indirectly, hit hard,” and that this decision would thwart the “scamming of our immigration process.”
Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Supreme Court will address the potential end of birthright citizenship during its next session in October.
The court’s ruling restricting lower federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions is expected to have immediate and far-reaching effects. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have frequently criticized what they perceive as ideological judges in federal district courts who have the power to block executive actions and even legislation passed by Congress.
While the potential elimination of automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented migrants in the U.S. is central to this high-profile case, numerous actions taken by Trump in recent months have also faced delays due to lower court rulings. The Congressional Research Service has documented 25 such cases from Trump’s inauguration up to April 29.
In response to the court’s ruling on Friday, Trump stated to reporters, “We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined.”
Lower courts have recently blocked the president’s proposed cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programs, and other government agencies. These actions have constrained his ability to terminate government employees and have put a hold on several immigration reforms, as well as suspending changes to election processes initiated by the White House.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter, the administration now finds itself in a stronger position to request that the courts allow it to proceed with many of these initiatives. During the Biden administration, conservative judges have thwarted attempts by Democrats to implement new environmental regulations, provide student loan forgiveness, and modify immigration policies. Similar judicial interventions occurred during Barack Obama’s presidency, which saw courts block changes aimed at normalizing immigration status for certain undocumented migrants and prevent him from extending overtime pay eligibility to more white-collar workers.
In these kinds of cases, the courts retain the authority to intervene and stop presidential actions they determine to be illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated, “The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”
However, the implications of this decision will unfold further along in the judicial process, at both the appellate and Supreme Court levels. In the interim, presidents—including Donald Trump and any future leaders, regardless of their political affiliation—will have increased leeway to act on various initiatives.