In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges exceeded their power by issuing nationwide pauses on an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that would end the long-standing right of birthright citizenship.
The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is being viewed as a win for the Trump administration and could reshape the role of the judiciary.
The case stemmed from an executive order signed by Trump on his second day in office that sought to reinterpret the constitutional language giving citizenship to nearly every child born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ status.
While there are several ongoing lawsuits over the constitutionality of Trump’s order, the Supreme Court was asked to address the issue of whether federal courts could issue universal injunctions, which are rulings that put a policy on hold nationwide.
The decision issued Friday by the justices, split along conservative-liberal lines, limits judges’ power to issue universal injunctions on federal policies implemented by any administration.
It delivered the Trump administration a win after its attorneys asked the Supreme Court to limit lower-court decisions so that they only applied to the jurisdictions overseen by the courts.
Barrett said Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order can’t take effect for 30 days, which could give time for those opposed to the order to file additional lawsuits.
In Barrett’s opinion, she wrote about the need to maintain balance between the different branches of government.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she wrote.
In a response to a dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Barrett writes that Jackson “offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissenting opinion from the bench, signaling a strong opposition to the majority opinion.
She argued that the Trump administration purposefully asked the Supreme Court to take up the universal injunction matter, instead of completely blocking a lower court ruling on birthright citizenship, because it would have to prove that its order is constitutional, which she called “an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text.”
“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” Sotomayor wrote.
Trump celebrates Supreme Court decision
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump celebrated the decision in a press conference Friday.
“That was a colossal abuse of power, which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades, and we’ve been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together,” Trump said.
Trump said he was grateful to the Supreme Court and Barrett for writing the opinion “brilliantly” and he will “promptly file” to advance policies blocked by judges, including the birthright issue.
After Trump signed the executive order in January, it became the subject of three lawsuits.
The cases were consolidated for the Supreme Court to review, but in each of the individual cases, lower court judges issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the order from being implemented. The judges said the administration would be unlikely to successfully defend the order.
The Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court in March over the issue of nationwide injunctions, and the justices heard oral arguments in May, which is later than the normal term’s end date of April 30.
The issue of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship remains before various federal courts, and could reach the Supreme Court next term.
When asked at the Friday press conference what will happen with the executive order, Bondi expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will take up the issue when it returns for its next term in October.
“So, birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session, by the Supreme Court,” Bondi said. “It indirectly impacts us, because, as you correctly pointed out, if there’s a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country.”
She later confirmed the administration will follow the law but it will be “case by case.”
“We’re very confident in the Supreme Court, but again, it’s pending litigation and that will directly be determined in October,” Bondi said.