US Supreme Court Limits Courts’ Ability to Issue National Injunctions

The Birthright Battle: How the U.S. Supreme Court Reshaped a Constitutional Cornerstone

The Gavel Falls: A Pivotal Supreme Court Ruling

In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that could redefine how presidential powers are contested in court. At the center of the storm? Birthright citizenship, a right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment for over 150 years.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that lower federal courts overstepped their bounds when issuing nationwide injunctions to block President Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. The ruling was more than a procedural footnote, it was a tectonic shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.

Birthright Citizenship: A Brief History

Born from the ashes of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) sought to erase the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. It declares: > “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

Over time, the courts reaffirmed this right, even for children born to undocumented immigrants. The landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) established that virtually all children born on U.S. soil are American citizens, regardless of their parents’ nationality.

But now, that settled interpretation is under fire.

Trump’s Executive Gambit

On January 20, 2025 — his first day back in office — President Trump signed an executive order titled: “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order aimed to exclude children born to undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship.

Immigration advocates rushed to court. District judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy. But the Supreme Court has now reined them in.

The Court’s Reasoning

According to the majority opinion: > “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

Translation? Lower courts may only block a policy as far as necessary to protect the plaintiffs in a case, not the entire nation.

This paves the way for piecemeal legal challenges, rather than sweeping judicial freezes.

Politics Meets the Constitution

The ruling is a major political win for Trump and a philosophical victory for conservatives wary of what they call “judicial activism.” By narrowing the scope of lower court authority, the Supreme Court effectively strengthens presidential power and sets a precedent that could embolden future executive actions.

It also triggers a new era of legal uncertainty: as nationwide injunctions vanish, federal policy may be legal in Texas, but illegal in California, until the Supreme Court weighs in.

A Global Perspective on Citizenship

In a world moving away from jus soli (right of the soil), the U.S. remains one of the few nations offering unrestricted birthright citizenship. Here's how it compares:

Region	Birthright Citizenship?
Americas	✅ Yes — U.S., Canada, Brazil, Mexico
Europe	❌ Rare — UK and France have limited forms
Asia	❌ Mostly by ancestry (jus sanguinis)
Africa	🔄 Mixed — South Africa allows it in some cases

Only ~33 countries today still follow the broad jus soli model — mostly in the Americas.

What Comes Next?

This landmark decision does more than reinterpret legal boundaries, it redefines the battlefield. Advocacy groups will now have to fight policy one jurisdiction at a time. The Supreme Court’s inbox may swell with appeals from conflicting rulings. And the fate of birthright citizenship, once thought untouchable, is now open to reinterpretation.

For a nation built by immigrants and governed by its Constitution, this ruling asks: Who decides what it means to be American? And perhaps more urgently, who gets to decide who decides?