New Jersey AG ‘confident’ in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Supreme Court updates: Trump wins on executive orders, fate of birthright citizenship unclear
Pennsylvania is one of 28 states in a legal limbo after SCOTUS birthright ruling. Legal experts widely say Trump’s executive order appears to be unconstitutional, despite his procedural victory.
Pennsylvania is one of 28 states at risk of losing birthright citizenship pending further litigation in the next month following a Supreme Court decision Friday that limits the ability of federal judges to halt President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
The decision creates the potential scenario in which children born to some immigrant parents on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River will have citizenship while those born on the Pennsylvania side will not.
The justices did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s move to end automatic birthright citizenship, a right that has existed for more than 150 years through the 14th Amendment, but ruled that federal judges had overstepped in applying an injunction in a case filed by 22 states to the entire nation. Legal experts widely say Trump’s executive order appears to be unconstitutional, despite his procedural victory.
June 27, 2025 – Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue of birthright citizenship will have far-reaching consequences. It will make it harder for states to block the president’s immigration policies. But it will also make it easier for the president to make changes to his policies. The court’s ruling does not address the question of whether the president can change his immigration policies at the state level. It does, however, make it more difficult for the state to stop the president from making changes to its policies.
All along, the issue of birthright citizenship was intertwined with Trump’s executive order in the court’s appeal. But the case also raised fundamental questions about the power of courts to pause the president’s agenda while they consider challenges to his policies.
The Supreme Court’s majority largely glossed over the issue of birthright citizenship, handing that off to lower courts to assess. What it focused on instead was eliminating a tool that both conservative and liberal groups have used to pause policies from presidents of both parties: the nationwide, or universal injunction. For Trump, this means his opponents will have to jump through additional hoops to try to shut down policies on a nationwide basis.
It won’t be impossible to do so, but it will prove more difficult.
The court was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was is required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy — and while the court didn’t directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in, for example, New Jersey — where that child would be a citizen — rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not.
And so, under the court’s opinion, states are likely to have easy time shutting down the birthright policy again.
But on other policies — from trade to other immigration enforcement issues — the Supreme Court’s decision may be beneficial to the president (and other future presidents) by making it harder for individuals to seek a temporary pause of a policy when they feel their rights have been violated.
Challengers to Trump birthright citizenship order quickly try again
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal district court judges can’t issue nationwide injunctions. But experts pointed out that the decision left open other avenues where courts could block Trump administrative actions nationwide. Unless other courts intervene, the administration may be able to move forward with the effort to end birthright citizenship in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order. There are more than 100 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, according to a tracker from the law firm Skadden. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court on behalf of several American parents whose children could lose immigration status through Trump’s order. But many of those involve class action claims or challenges based on the Administrative Procedure Act, legal avenues that were explicitly left outside of Friday’S decision. The White House had overstated how much the decision would restrict lower court judges, an advocacy group CEO said, but there is a nuance and a narrow scope that the White House sort of ignored in their presser, Skye Perryman said.
In the decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the six-justice majority ruled that most courts could not issue the orders, sometimes called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions, that paused federal administrative action.
But experts pointed out that the decision left open other avenues where courts could block Trump administrative actions nationwide, on behalf of states, in class actions and where the suit challenges a federal rule.
The decision itself kicked off a race to the courthouse. Unless other courts intervene, the administration after 30 days may be able to move forward with the effort to end birthright citizenship in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order.
At a news conference Friday after the decision, Trump claimed the case ended a “grave threat to democracy” from judges who had ruled against him in the first few months of his term.
“I was elected on a historic mandate but in the last few months we have seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies they voted for,” Trump said.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised the decision during the press conference and said it “indirectly impacts every case in this country, and we’re thrilled with their decision today.”
There are more than 100 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, according to a tracker from the law firm Skadden. However, many of those involve class action claims or challenges based on the Administrative Procedure Act, legal avenues that were explicitly left outside of Friday’s decision.
Efforts to change existing litigation already started Friday as the ACLU filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court on behalf of several American parents whose children could lose immigration status through Trump’s order.
The complaint argued the litigation should represent all families impacted by the order nationwide, which are too numerous to join in the suit since the order would mean “more than two hundred thousand newborns will be unlawfully denied citizenship each year.”
“Denying citizenship to children being born every day throughout the country would have devastating impacts on Plaintiffs and on the United States as a whole,” the suit argued.
Skye Perryman, CEO of advocacy group Democracy Forward that has filed several of the lawsuits that sought nationwide injunctions, told reporters Friday that the White House had overstated how much the decision would restrict lower court judges.
“We are disappointed, obviously, in the ruling, but there is a nuance and a narrow scope that the White House sort of ignored in their presser,” Perryman told reporters.
Perryman pointed out that many of the more than 100 cases filed against the Trump administration involve class action claims or the Administrative Procedure Act that were separate from the decision Friday.
Jesse Panuccio, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and former associate attorney general in the first Trump administration, called the decision “seismic” for limiting the ability of single district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
While the opinion leaves open some avenues for courts to still issue nationwide injunctions, he said the decision should be read as a warning to lower courts.
“It’s hard to read this opinion as anything other than a pretty bracing message from the Supreme Court to the district courts,” Panuccio said. “And so even though they didn’t necessarily decide all those issues, I think they’re saying courts need to be real careful in their use of equitable relief.”
Adriel Orozco, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Council, pointed out that Friday’s decision only addressed the legality of the nationwide pause, not the legality of Trump’s underlying effort to limit birthright citizenship.
Orozco said that the avenue brought up by other experts, class actions, are “very burdensome” because of their cost and long time frame and can limit who is included. He said that depending on how the litigation proceeds, there could be children impacted by the order but not covered by a class action suit.
“So the fear here is that there are going to be thousands to millions of families that are going to be impacted that have kids and will not know whether or not the federal government is going to recognize their U.S. citizenship,” Orozco said.
State angles
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin argued the decision did not close off the possibility that states could still obtain nationwide injunctions against the federal government under some circumstances, since the Supreme Court left open that question for lower courts to deal with first. New Jersey is part of one of two coalitions of Democratic attorneys general who challenged the order.
In court, states have argued that many federal programs they administer depend on the citizenship status of state residents, and it would be impossible to handle if citizenship varied on state lines.
“We are very confident that we have met that standard, we are very confident that we will meet that standard when we go back to the district court,” Platkin said.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, part of the second coalition of states challenging the executive order, told reporters that his state would also continue the litigation.
“Time and time again he is undermining the rule of law, undermining state sovereignty, undermining the separation of powers and it is incumbent upon all of us to not capitulate in this moment, to not accept these changes that we are seeing from this president,” Brown said.
Jeremy Beck, co-president of NumbersUSA, which seeks to limit immigration, said his organization remains “very focused” in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on Congress passing legislation that would terminate birthright citizenship.
Beck said the decision allows the Trump administration to move forward with the executive order against birthright citizenship, but he pointed out that policy would be partial and tentative “because there are other ways to block it.”
“It’s only necessarily going to last until the next administration,” Beck said. “Since this is an executive order it’s not a law, it doesn’t have permanence. It’s not a lasting legislative initiative. So, to that end, our organization is still very much focused on getting legislation passed through Congress.”
Legislation currently pending before Congress that aims to restrict birthright citizenship is known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025. The legislation is sponsored in the House by Brian Babin, R-Texas, and in the Senate by Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Beck, when asked whether he thinks legislation would hold up in courts if they continue to rule against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, expressed uncertainty.
“We’ll just have to see,” Beck said. “We think that there’s a good case there to be made, but it’ll have to be argued in the court and the court will have to decide.”
Supreme Court Limits Rulings Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court imposed new restrictions on the power of individual judges. The decision left uncertain the fate of President Trump’s push to curtail birthright citizenship.
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday limited the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a decision that handed President Trump a victory in his battles with the judiciary but left uncertain the fate of his push to curtail birthright citizenship.
The 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted lower courts for granting universal injunctions that blocked Trump’s policy across the U.S. The court said that because such orders go beyond providing relief to the plaintiffs, they “likely exceed” the authority Congress gave to district judges.
What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the U.S. an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution. The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. The White House is “very confident” the high court will ultimately side with the administration, an official says. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain, the official adds. and uncertainty swirls around the next steps and uncertainty around the case’s next steps. and around the merits of the case.. Within hours, class-action lawsuits challenging the policy could still get nationwide certification as a class action. Within two hours, the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the possibility of class action suits as a next step in the legal battle over the policy still to be decided. and within hours after the ruling, the next step could be class action lawsuits against the president.
What You Need To Know The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration’s major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent
The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain.
Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It’s part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump’s order constitutional? The justices didn’t say
The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”
Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.
“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”