Supreme Court ruling doesn't end birthright citizenship: Here's what it means

(NewsNation) — A Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump’s executive order didn’t halt birthright citizenship, but it did restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that grant legal relief in the matter. 

In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court favored Trump’s request to temporarily halt nationwide injunctions from district courts on birthright citizenship, saying that the lower courts exceeded their authority.

They did not, however, rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, which has been guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, leaving the issue in limbo for the time being. 

What does this ruling mean? 

Trump issued an executive order in January directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. 

The order sparked several lawsuits, and federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocked the order nationwide, saying it violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language. 

Their rulings halted enforcement of Trump’s directive while litigation made its way through the courts. 

But now, the Supreme Court said those three lower courts need to move quickly to narrow their injunctions against Trump’s executive order. 

“What is shocking to so many people about this decision, even though it's a procedural decision, it's a procedural decision that relates to a fundamental area of people's birthplace in the United States,” Michele Goodwin, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law School, said. 

Birthright citizenship decision: What happens next?

The Supreme Court said the Trump administration has to wait 30 days before the birthright order can take effect. 

After that point, the places where lawsuits haven’t been filed, which were covered by the nationwide injunctions, will ostensibly be fair game for Trump’s order. 

We can expect some level of legal chaos and a patchwork of decisions across the country. 

“The folks who are representing the children and the families who are potentially here illegally in this country, they're going to be filing lawsuits left and right for those individual clients, probably some lawyers will try to make it a class action,” John Fishwick, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, told NewsNation.

There will also be a flurry of activity by the Trump administration, “so it's going to clog up our courts on an individual basis” and create a “patchwork of different rules in different states,” Fishwick said. 

This may mean every person in the United States will have to defend their citizenship in relation to this executive order, Goodwin added.

Shortly after the ruling came down, several groups that originally sued the Trump administration over the order refiled their lawsuit as a class action. The refiling came as a direct response to the court ruling, which the groups said “potentially opens the door for partial enforcement of the executive order.”

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, which includes the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants, reported Reuters. 

What could it mean for birthright citizenship in the future?

The crux of the matter, which is the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, is still unresolved under the Supreme Court ruling. 

Getting to that point through the legal system could take a year, Fishwick said. 

For now, the Trump administration will have a clear path to enforce the order on a case-by-case basis, which it will do while defending the directive in multiple courts. Injunctions will only apply to the group of people bringing the suit. 

Repealing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, but the Trump administration could argue on narrowing what falls under it, which could ultimately end up in the hands of the Supreme Court again.  

We can potentially expect a substantive challenge on birthright citizenship because the executive order itself is not procedural, Goodwin said. 

Most people wouldn't expect something as well settled as birthright citizenship to get to the Supreme Court, "but with this court, well-established legal and constitutional principles have become quite vulnerable," she added. 

How both sides feel about the Supreme Court decision

Trump hailed the decision a victory, posting, “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” on his Truth Social platform. 

U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi also applauded the ruling. 

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer,” Bondi posted on X. 

States and groups that challenged the order say they will keep fighting. 

“Today’s decision sends a message to U.S.-born children of immigrants that their place in this country is conditional,” George Escobar of CASA, which brought the suit, said in a statement. “But we are not backing down. CASA will keep fighting until the rights of all our children are fully recognized and protected.“ 

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, whose state challenged the plan, said he will also keep fighting. 

“To be clear: birthright citizenship remains the law of the land in every state. Period. We will keep fighting to protect your rights. State AGs who fight for you have never mattered more,” he posted on X.