In a striking turn of events Friday, President Donald Trump reportedly celebrated a Supreme Court decision curbing the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions — a ruling he cast as a sweeping victory for his administration’s effort to revoke birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants.
In a statement from the White House briefing room, Mr. Trump called the decision “monumental,” declaring it allowed the executive branch to move forward on policies previously halted by expansive court orders.
Central to the moment was his contention: “Birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of slaves, not for people who scam the system,” he asserted, staking his case on a historical interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Under his January executive order, citizenship would no longer be automatic for children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Federal judges promptly blocked the directive with sweeping nationwide injunctions—a judicial tool now restricted by the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that injunctions may apply only to the specific parties involved, not the country at large.
While it does not resolve the core constitutional question surrounding Mr. Trump’s executive order, the decision loosens judicial constraints and permits selective enforcement in jurisdictions not yet covered by injunctions.
Lower courts remain responsible for adjudicating individual cases, and Mr. Trump’s order remains temporarily paused for 30 days.
Legal scholars express concern the ruling risks fragmenting the application of critical executive orders, particularly one as consequential as redefining citizenship.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, warned that this outcome “weakens essential protections and invites a patchwork of rights,” undermining the consistent application of constitutional guarantees.
Mr. Trump’s remarks echoed earlier justifications he has offered, framing the nation’s citizenship policy as originally intended to protect formerly enslaved children following the Civil War—not to be exploited by modern immigrants.
Critics, however, roundly dismiss this historical framing.
Although proponents call the ruling a win for executive accountability, critics say it opens the door to uneven enforcement across the country.
As lower courts begin adjudicating individual challenges, the fight over the scope and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is far from over.
[READ MORE: Vance Shreds Media Over Coverage of Trump’s Historic Iran Decision]
About Post Author
