In an important Friday ruling, the US Supreme Court restricted the authority of federal judges to issue sweeping legal injunctions, supporting former President Donald Trump’s administration in its court fight over his attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship. The 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state to reconsider the breadth of their nationwide injunctions that had prohibited the implementation of Trump’s executive order.
Although the ruling did not permit the policy to go into effect immediately nor comment on its legality, it was a blow to judicial power. The order, signed by Trump on his return to office, aimed at stripping US citizenship from children born in the US to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents. Opponents claim the order is an infringement of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all those born in the US.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting along with the court’s two other liberal justices, berated the majority for evading the policy’s legality and curtailing judicial authority in the face of an allegedly illegal executive action. She decried the executive order as “patently unlawful.”
Trump’s administration itself had asked the court to invalidate universal injunctions in general, claiming that they are an extension of the judiciary beyond its powers. Federal courts had previously employed such injunctions to suspend various Trump-era policies.
The Department of Justice contends that the 14th Amendment does not include children of illegal aliens or short-term visitors. Legal precedent in an 1898 Supreme Court case is on the side of birthright citizenship for all but a few born in the United States.
Majority public opinion continues to be opposed to dismantling birthright citizenship, with 52% rejecting the policy in a recent survey.
The ruling is part of a larger trend in which the court has been upholding Trump’s immigration agenda for recent months.
