On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, delivered a significant victory to the Trump administration by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, effectively allowing the administration to move forward with its executive order to end automatic birthright citizenship in 28 states not involved in the lawsuits. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not directly address the constitutionality of President Trump’s January 20, 2025, order, which denies citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, but it curbed the ability of federal judges to issue broad injunctions that block such policies nationwide. The Court argued that these injunctions, absent in the 18th and 19th centuries, exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts, suggesting class-action lawsuits as an alternative for challengers. This procedural decision, set to take effect after a 30-day delay, has sparked intense debate over the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of U.S. law since 1868, reaffirmed in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. Supporters of the ruling, including Trump, hailed it as a “monumental victory” for restoring constitutional balance and executive authority, arguing that birthright citizenship has outlived its usefulness in an era of mass immigration and is exploited by those seeking to bypass legal pathways.

Proponents of ending birthright citizenship, including the Trump administration, contend that the policy, rooted in the 14th Amendment to reverse the Dred Scott decision, was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. They argue it incentivizes illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” burdening public resources and undermining national sovereignty. The administration’s executive order claims that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., a view critics call a fringe reinterpretation of settled law. Supporters assert that modern challenges, unlike those of the post-Civil War era, justify reevaluating the policy’s lawfulness and utility, pointing to the U.S. as one of only about 30 countries globally with unrestricted birthright citizenship. They argue that the Supreme Court’s decision to limit injunctions rightfully empowers the executive to address these issues without overreach by individual judges, aligning with a broader push to curb judicial activism. However, the ruling leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges, as lower courts may still find the order unconstitutional, and class-action lawsuits could delay or halt its implementation.

Critics, including the three dissenting liberal justices led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warn that the decision threatens the rule of law and risks creating a “patchwork” of citizenship rules, where a child’s status depends on their state of birth. They argue that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right, vital to America’s identity as a nation of equal citizens, and that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment and over a century of precedent. Immigrant rights groups, such as the ACLU and CASA, decry the policy as cruel and discriminatory, potentially rendering thousands of U.S.-born children stateless and creating a “second-class” population. The dissenters emphasized that limiting nationwide injunctions forces individuals to file costly, time-consuming lawsuits, disproportionately harming vulnerable families. Legal experts predict ongoing litigation, with the order’s constitutionality likely to return to the Supreme Court, as the current ruling sidestepped the merits of the policy itself. The decision has intensified fears of executive overreach, with progressive lawmakers and advocates warning that it sets a precedent for dismantling other constitutional protections under the guise of procedural reform.