WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

Watch in the player above.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

READ MORE: The full Supreme Court ruling in the birthright citizenship case, limiting nationwide injunctions

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

WATCH: Kagan says ‘there’s no way’ she’d bring birthright citizenship case to Supreme Court

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

“We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

Questions over birthright citizenship loom after SCOTUS decision

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that district courts don’t have the power to issue nationwide injunctions, including ones to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship.

President Trump, addressing the press, claimed victory.

“I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very complex problem,” said Trump.

READ MORE | SCOTUS, in birthright citizenship case, limits judges’ power to block Trump policies

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general, including New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, says this is not an absolute victory for Trump because the Supreme Court did not address the actual issue of birthright citizenship.

“Let’s be clear, birthright citizenship remains the law of the land in states like New Jersey and in every state across the country,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D).

Birthright citizenship, under the 14th Amendment, says any person born on American soil is an American citizen. The amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, ensuring the children of formerly enslaved people were, too, considered American.

University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Cary Coglianese says that over more than 150 years, courts and Congress have interpreted the 14th Amendment as applying to anyone born on American soil.

“The Supreme Court in 1898 upholds the idea that this was not just limited to the children of slaves,” said Coglianese.

The current Supreme Court’s ruling opens the door for Trump to move forward on banning birthright citizenship and other executive orders.

“Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country for birthright citizenship, and it wasn’t meant for that reason,” said Trump.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed a lawsuit against Trump’s executive order to ban birthright citizenship, released a statement to Action News. In it, Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision and its impact on the work that the ACLU does.

“The court’s decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order,” said Wofsy

“We knew this would be a fight, but it’s a fight worth having,” said Platkin.

Organizations and political experts alike are watching what impact the Supreme Court’s decision may have, not just now, but in the years to come.

“It will certainly help the administration move forward with a little less constraint, maybe a lot less constraint from federal courts on what it does,” said Coglinese.

There will still be 30 days before Trump’s executive order, banning birthright citizenship, can go into effect. The Supreme Court’s decision did leave open other ways that it can be challenged, including through class-action lawsuits.

Lately, the headlines have been clear: President Donald Trump is headed for a showdown with the courts. If he ignores their rulings, the courts have few tools and limited power to make him comply.

But the real contest is not legal. It is political.

As a political scientist who studies presidential behavior and public responses to unilateral action, I have spent my career examining the boundaries of executive power.

Those limits, aimed at constraining the president, are set in law.

The Constitution outlines the powers of Congress and the president in articles 1 and 2. It formally gives Congress the power of the purse and requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Statutes dictate how agencies operate, how appointments are made and how funds must be spent. Courts interpret and enforce these rules.

These legal constraints reflect the founders’ concern with unchecked executive power. That concern is embedded in the country’s political origins – the Declaration of Independence was a direct rebuke to royal overreach.

But law alone has never been enough to prevent presidents from abusing their power. The law’s force depends on political will. Presidents often follow the law not simply because they must, but to avoid backlash from Congress, the media or the public.

What the United States is witnessing in 2025 is not just a president testing the system. It is a transformation of the presidency into a fully political institution. The president acts until political resistance becomes strong enough to stop him.

Testing the limits

These political constraints are informal and fluid.

They arise from public opinion, media scrutiny, pressure from party leaders and other elected officials, and the threat of electoral consequences. While legal rules rely on institutions, political limits depend on reputation, norms and the willingness of others to resist.

Trump’s presidency operates within this second framework. Legal boundaries are still present, but they are often treated by his administration as optional and without deference.

Trump, for example, has sidelined the Office of Legal Counsel, the executive branch’s source of legal guidance. His focus appears to be not on legality, process or constraint, but on headlines, polling and control of the narrative.

Courts still issue rulings, but their power depends on a broader political culture of compliance, and that culture is weakening.

Trump is not the first president to test the limits of authority. But the pace and scale of his defiance are without precedent. He appears to be betting that pushing boundaries will continue to pay off.

Lag between law and action

The legal challenges facing Trump are real.

In his first 100 days back in office, he took aggressive steps on federal spending, appointments to key executive branch positions, tariffs and deportations. Trump has announced he will not enforce legislation that the Supreme Court confirmed was constitutional. Many of these actions have already triggered legal challenges.

These are not isolated incidents. Taken together, they reveal a broader pattern.

Trump appears to treat legal rules not as limits but as obstacles to be negotiated or ignored. One recent scholarly paper has described Trump’s approach as “legalistic noncompliance,” where the administration uses the language of law to give the appearance of compliance while defying the substance of court orders.

The executive branch can move quickly. Courts cannot. This structural mismatch gives Trump a significant advantage. By the time a ruling is issued, the political context may have changed or public attention may have moved on.

Judges have begun to notice. In recent weeks, courts have flagged not only legal violations but also clear signs of intentional defiance.

Still, enforcement is slow, and Trump continues to behave as though court rulings are little more than political talking points.

Politics the only real check

Trump is not guided by precedent or legal tradition. If there is a limit on presidential power, it is political. And even that constraint is fragile.

In a February 2025 national survey by the Weidenbaum Center, a research institute that I head at Washington University in St. Louis, just 21% of Americans said the president should be able to enact major policy without Congress. The public does not support unchecked presidential power: A further 25% of respondents, including more than one-third of Republicans, neither agreed nor disagreed that a president should have this type of unchecked power. Of those with an opinion, a solid 72% of Americans oppose unilateral presidential action, including 90% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 42% of Republicans.

These findings align with nine earlier national surveys conducted during the Obama and Trump administrations. Jon Rogowski and I report these results in our book, “No Blank Check.”

But one important shift stands out in the recent survey. Support for unilateral executive action among the two-thirds of Republicans who expressed an opinion has reached an all-time high, with 58% of them endorsing presidential action without Congress. That is more than 16 points higher than in any previous wave.

Despite that rise in partisan support, Trump’s broader political position remains weak.

His approval ratings remain underwater. His policies on tariffs and federal spending cuts are unpopular. Consumer confidence is falling.

Congressional Republicans continue to offer public support, but many are watching their own polling numbers closely as the midterms approach.

If the economy falters and public opinion turns more sharply against the president, political resistance could grow. I believe that’s when legal rules may begin to matter again – not because they carry new force, but because violating them would carry higher political costs.

Real test still ahead

So far, no judge has held the Trump administration in contempt of court. But the signs of erosion are unmistakable. Trump recently accused the Supreme Court of “not allowing me to do what I was elected to do” after it temporarily blocked his administration’s effort to deport migrants with alleged ties to Venezuelan gangs. Treating the judiciary as just another political adversary and ignoring its rulings risks an even deeper constitutional crisis.

The most meaningful check on presidential power will be political.

Courts rely on the broader political system for enforcement. That support can take many forms: elected officials speaking out in defense of the rule of law; Congress using its oversight and funding powers to uphold court rulings; bureaucrats refusing to implement unlawful directives; and a press and public that demand compliance. Without that support, even the clearest legal decisions may be ignored.

The legal fights unfolding today are serious and must be watched closely. But Trump is not focused on the courts. He is focused on politics – on how far he can go, and whether anyone will make him stop.