See the scene outside the U.S. Supreme Court on historic day of decisions

Concerned Women for America (CWA) activists pray outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices issue rulings in pending cases, in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025.

Several important Supreme Court decisions came down on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court’s current term. Six major rulings related to President Donald Trump and birthright citizenship, LGBTQ+ schoolbooks and online porn will be released . See the scenes outside the courthouse on this historic day.Concerned Women for America (CWA) activists pray outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices issue rulings in pending cases, in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025.

Demonstrators hold a banner reading “MAGA Justices are taking away out hard-won freedoms. Fight Back.” after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship, outside the court in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025. Nathan Howard, REUTERS

A member of the media runs from the U.S. Supreme Court with a verdict, as justices issue rulings in pending cases in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025. Nathan Howard, REUTERS

A person stands with a U.S. flag attached to them, after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship, outside the court in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025. Nathan Howard, REUTERS

A member of the media runs, after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship, outside the court in Washington, D.C., June 27, 2025. Nathan Howard, REUTERS

The Supreme Court delivers decisions on six cases on final day of decisions for the 2024-2025 term in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

The group Concerned Women for America gathers in front of the the Supreme Court as the court delivers decisions on six cases on final day of decisions for the 2024-2025 term in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

The Supreme Court delivers decisions on six cases on final day of decisions for the 2024-2025 term in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

The Supreme Court delivers decisions on six cases on final day of decisions for the 2024-2025 term in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025. Jack Gruber, USA TODAY

‘A very bad opinion for the rule of law’ – legal expert

Robin Levinson King

North America reporter

Margo Schlanger, who teaches at University of Michigan and is the director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, slammed the Supreme Court’s decision as “a very bad opinion for the rule of law”.

She pointed not only to the court’s ruling today, which limited lower courts’ ability to stop executive overreach, but also its ruling earlier this week, allowing migrants to be deported to third countries, despite a lower court injunction.

What that did, she says, is allow the federal government to ignore lower-court rulings, essentially making the Supreme Court the only check on presidential authority.

Combined, she says the two rulings are “a grab by the Supreme Court to say we are the decider”.

“What they both say is we are the only court that matters,” she says.

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of birthright citizenship unclear

FILE – The Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Share This Story

email

Print

Linkedin

Reddit

The court on Friday issued decisions on the final six cases that were left on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals relating to Trump’s agenda.

A divided Supreme Court 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.

The court sided with Maryland parents with religious objections to school book material, preserved a key part of an Obamacare coverage requirement, upheld a law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online and preserved a fee subsidizing phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas.

Here’s the latest:

Law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online upheld

The ruling came in a case over a Texas law that was challenged by an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition.

The group said the law puts an unfair free speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. It agreed, though, that children under 18 shouldn’t be seeing porn.

Nearly half all states have passed similar age verification laws as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material.

▶ Read more about the Supreme Court’s decision

Vice President JD Vance hails ‘huge’ Supreme Court decision

Vance said the justices were “smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions.”

He also shared a post from conservative commentator Sean Davis, who said the court was “nuking universal injunctions,” which liberals have sought from district judges to slow down Trump’s agenda.

Birthright citizenship case ruling will cause ‘chaos and confusion,’ group says

Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said the decision “opens the door to discrimination, statelessness, and a fundamental erosion of rights for those born on American soil.”

“By lifting the injunction on this cruel and unconstitutional executive order, there will be chaos and confusion for families across the country as citizenship may depend on the state you were born in,” Rodríguez said in a statement.

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. The conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide.

New York AG calls Supreme Court ruling a profound setback

The ruling, which said individual judges don’t have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, left unclear the fate of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

“While I am confident that our case defending birthright citizenship will ultimately prevail, my heart breaks for the families whose lives may be upended by the uncertainty of this decision,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

‘The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended’

Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of injunctions issued by federal judges leaves thousands of people vulnerable.

“The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended, and many will be wrongfully deported. The ruling undermines the ability of the federal courts to protect the Constitution from a president with no respect for the rule of law and a dislike for people who don’t look like him,” Solomón said in a statement.

Solomón predicted the Trump administration would use the ruling to “illegally deport citizens in violation of the 14th Amendment.”

“Ultimately, the courts will rule against this blatantly unconstitutional act by the president. But the ruling today prevents lower courts from stopping unconstitutional acts nationwide before they do serious harm,” she said.

Many justices have raised concerns about nationwide injunctions

In the past, at least five of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have raised concerns about the orders, but it hasn’t just been conservatives.

Speaking at the Northwestern University School of Law in 2022, Kagan warned of “forum shopping,” when litigants file suit in courts they hope will be receptive to them.

“In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas,” she said. “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Trump plans news conference to celebrate Supreme Court ruling

The president posted on his Truth Social media network that the ruling was a “GIANT WIN.”

“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,” Trump said in the post.

He announced he plans to have a news conference at 11:30 a.m. at the White House.

Court sides with Maryland parents over LGBTQ+ storybooks

The justice ruled that the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.

The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents would win in the end.

The school district introduced the storybooks, including “Prince & Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in 2022 to better reflect the district’s diversity. In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a niece worries that her uncle won’t have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.

Supreme Court OKs fee subsidizing phone and internet services

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.

At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The fee provides billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.

The ruling crossed ideological lines, with Kagan writing for the majority in an opinion that included several conservative justices.

Key part of Obamacare coverage requirements preserved

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge from Christian employers to a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements, which affects some 150 million Americans.

The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.

The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been critical of his Democratic predecessor’s law.

Nationwide injunctions have become a favored judicial tool during Trump presidency

A Supreme Court opinion limiting the use of nationwide injunctions takes aim at a judicial maneuver that has soared in popularity during the first several months of Trump’s second term.

A Congressional Research Service report identified 25 cases between Jan. 20 and April 29 in which a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. Those include cases on topics ranging from federal funding to diversity, equity and inclusion considerations to birthright citizenship, the subject at issue in Friday’s Supreme Court opinion restricting their use.

That number is in contrast to 28 nationwide injunction cases that CRS identified from former President Joe Biden’s administration and 86 from Trump’s first term.

The report cautions that it’s not possible to provide a full count since nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise meaning.

Sotomayor accuses the Trump administration of “gamesmanship” in dissent

She wrote that Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order has been deemed “patently unconstitutional” by every court that examined it.

So, instead of trying to argue that the executive order is likely constitutional, the administration “asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,” she wrote. “Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her in her dissenting opinion.

Attorney general applauds limits on nationwide injunctions

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on the social platform X shortly after the ruling came down.

Bondi said the Justice Department “will continue to zealously defend” Trump’s “policies and his authority to implement them.”

Universal injunctions have been a source of intense frustration for the Trump administration amid a barrage of legal challenges to his priorities around immigration and other matters.

Nationwide injunctions limited, but fate of birthright citizenship order unclear

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

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.

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.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is reading her dissenting opinion from the bench, a sign of her clear disagreement with the majority’s opinion.

The other big cases left on the docket

The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ+ storybooks in public schools, but other decisions appear less obvious.

The judges will also weigh a Texas age-verification law for online pornography and a map of Louisiana congressional districts, now in its second trip to the nation’s highest court.

The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m.

Once they’re seated, they’ll get right to the opinions.

The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority so that the junior justices go first. The birthright citizenship case will likely be announced last by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Hear this story

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on May 15 wrestled with whether to let President Donald Trump broadly enforce his changes to birthright citizenship as courts consider whether those changes are constitutional.

The justices seemed to pose tougher questions to the Trump administration’s lawyers than to lawyers for the states and immigrants’ rights advocates challenging Trump’s executive order.

But they also probed whether there’s an alternative to the national injunctions that district courts have issued, which put the order on hold while it’s being litigated.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court can quickly take up the underlying issue of whether Trump’s order banning birthright citizenship is constitutional.

“Is there any reason, in this case, we would not be able to act expeditiously?” he asked Solicitor General John Sauer.

Justice Elena Kagan said the government was trying to avoid a high court ruling on constitutionality while denying citizenship to children born to parents who are undocumented immigrants.

“You just keep on losing in the lower courts,” she told Sauer. “What’s supposed to happen to prevent that?”

Federal district judges across the United States have ruled the policy will likely be found unconstitutional when it’s fully litigated, so, in the meantime, while the case plays out in court, Trump cannot enforce it.

The Trump administration argues the executive order he signed on his first day back in office can only be paused for the people who are challenging the president’s executive order.

The states, immigrants’ rights groups and expectant parents who successfully sought national injunctions say they’re the only way to prevent a chaotic patchwork of citizenship rules across the country.

How the high court rules will affect not only whether birthright citizenship will be curtailed at least temporarily, but also whether it will be harder for judges to pause other Trump initiatives.

Here’s a summary of updates, as they happened.

State Attorneys General confident after oral arguments

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said he was confident the justices would side with his team of Democratic attorneys general, even after the justices posed prickly procedural questions.

“We’ve been consistent as states on this,” Platkin said. “We have said for years that universal Injunctions should be held to limited circumstances. But clearly, those limited circumstances include a case where the president, with a Sharpie, rewrites the 14th Amendment.”William Tong, attorney general of Connecticut, said the issue is personal to him and other children of immigrants.“For the last couple of hours, we talked about, we discussed, we debated, really important legal questions, constitutional questions,” Tong said. “But I just want to refocus on how personal this issue is.”– Savannah Kuchar

Sauer: Fix for national injunctions ‘extremely urgent’

Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court not to tinker with limits on nationwide injunctions because of the flood of 40 blocks federal judges around the country have placed on the Trump administration policies during its first four months.

“That is an extremely urgent question,” Sauer said.

He said principles of limiting the injunctions “have all proven to be completely ineffective in slowing the essentially slaughter, flood or cascade of universal injunctions that we see in these cases.”

Sauer also argued in his summation that the government could eventually win its case to bar birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

“The suggestion that our position on the merits is weak is profoundly mistaken,” Sauer said.

– Bart Jansen

Alito: Can justices rule on injunction without considering birthright?

Justice Samuel Alito asked the lawyer for 16 individuals fighting the Trump policy whether the justices could decide the case about nationwide injunctions without making up their minds about whether birthright citizenship should continue.

“I think that we would be very eager to do supplemental briefing on that,” said lawyer Kelsi Corkran. “We couldn’t because we keep winning,” she said, to laughter in the courtroom.

Alito said she wasn’t answering his question. Corkran then said the underlying birthright issue is embedded in whether there is a block on Trump’s policy.

“I think it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for the court to provide meaningful… analysis without taking into account the fact that the government is asking the court to allow it to ignore this court’s precedent, to ignore a duly enacted statute and upend 100 years of executive branch practice,” Corkran said.

– Bart Jansen

Patchwork could make some states magnets for giving birth

Justice Elena Kagan said if the high court ruling creates a patchwork of citizenship policies among states, some states could become magnets, as a place for migrants who are pregnant to give birth.

“It strikes me as completely obvious,” Kagan said.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum said that is part of why the high court should issue a nationwide court ruling. Beyond the temporary injunctions that have blocked Trump’s policy, Feigenbaum argued the justices should look at the merits of the case because the president seeks to deny citizenship to children who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident.

Feigenbaum said the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in 1898 and Congress codified the policy in 1940 and 1952.

“I don’t think this is a close case for why we need national relief,” Feigenbaum said.

– Bart Jansen

Barrett asks if there are other ways to help states

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if there’s a way to stop states from being adversely affected without a universal injunction.

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, said if the Justice Department wants to suggest alternatives, it must raise them in the lower courts. And that has to include an explanation of how their alternative would work practically and legally.

– Maureen Groppe

Alito questions nationwide injunctions from individual judges

Justice Samuel Alito asked a lawyer for the states challenging the Trump policy to focus on nationwide injunctions, in which one of the 680 federal district judges, “who are monarchs of their realm,” could issue an order binding the entire country.

“They are dedicated and they are scholarly, and I’m not impugning their motives in any way, but you know, sometimes they are wrong,” Alito said. “All Article 3 judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’”

– Bart Jansen

Democrats take protest podium

A handful of Democratic lawmakers stopped by to share remarks with protesters outside the Supreme Court, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.“For the children, si se puede,” Pelosi told the crowd, setting off cheers from some in the crowd. Yes, it can be done.Others in the crowd expressed their displeasure with Democrats in Congress, following Pelosi and her security as she exited the protest, chanting “Do your job.”– Savannah Kuchar

New Jersey solicitor general warns of ‘unprecedented chaos’

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, who is arguing on behalf of states challenging the executive order ending birthright citizenship, said there are no alternatives to universal injunctions that would help states in this case.

States, he noted to the justices, can’t file class action suits.

“I don’t see how it can be the answer for us,” he said.

And states face serious burdens when administering benefits and programs under the executive order, Feigenbaum argued. Federal law, for example, requires states to verify citizenship for Medicaid benefits.

Letting it go into effect would produce “unprecedented chaos,” he said.

“We genuinely don’t know how this could possibly work on the ground,” he said.

–Maureen Groppe

Brown says nationwide injunctions spur government action

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that universal injunctions force the government to appeal cases faster when policies are blocked.

“That’s actually what we would want,” Jackson said.

Solicitor General John Sauer said the high court should only consider complicated cases after they have percolated through district and appeals courts.

“Percolation of novel, sensitive constitutional issues is a merit of our system,” Sauer said. “It is not a bad feature of the system.”

– Bart Jansen

Attorney for New Jersey highlights unanswered administrative questions

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, said in his opening remarks that the nation has never allowed citizenship to vary by state. That would happen if the Supreme Court said Trump’s policy were on hold only in the states that challenged it.

The result, he said, would raise serious and unanswered administrative questions for both the federal government and the states.

And the Justice Department’s argument that courts need more time to consider whether Trump’s order is constitutional overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on this.

– Maureen Groppe

Sauer says government could refuse to obey appeals court decisions

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the government would obey an appeals court ruling or ignore it before the Supreme Court decides a thorny case.

“You resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey within the 2nd Circuit a precedent,” Coney Barrett said.

Solicitor General John Sauer refused to categorically say the government would obey an appeals court ruling in the states where it applied. He said there could be cases where the government is trying to get an appeals decision overruled.

“Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice,” Sauer said. “We generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case.”

– Bart Jansen

Barrett questions why the administration didn’t ask the court to rule on constitutionality

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General John Sauer on why the administration didn’t ask the Supreme Court to decide whether Trump’s order was constitutional.

Sauer said the case illustrated “fast and furious” decision-making by courts, and that Trump’s executive order required more time for courts to assess.

When Barrett pointed out that the government had asked the Supreme Court to leap ahead and decide the underlying issue in other cases, Sauer said those were more clear-cut situations.

And here, he emphasized, it’s “imperative” that the court address what happens to the order as it’s being fully litigated.

– Maureen Groppe

Kavanaugh asks what happens if order goes into effect

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about the practical effects of the executive order going into effect if the Supreme Court sides with the administration.

What do hospitals and states do with newborns the next day? he asked.

Solicitor General John Saur said federal officials would have to figure that out.

“How?” Kavanaugh asked. “You think they can get it together in time?”

– Maureen Groppe

Kagan: Trump will ‘keep on losing’ on barring birthright citizenship

Justice Elena Kagan predicted the government would continue to avoid a high court ruling while denying citizenship to children born to parents who are undocumented immigrants, while multiple cases are litigated.

“If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I would approach the Supreme Court with this case,” Kagan said. “You just keep on losing in the lower courts. What’s supposed to happen to prevent that?”

Sauer said he “respectfully disagreed with that forecast on the merits,” but said other litigants could bring more cases.

“We have only had snap judgments,” Sauer said. “Our arguments are compelling.”

– Bart Jansen

Sotomayor asks about deciding the underlying constitutional question

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked why the Supreme Court shouldn’t just decide now whether Trump’s executive order is constitutional.

Solicitor General John Sauer said that would leap ahead of the usual process of having lower courts grapple with the issue before the Supreme Court weighs in. The benefit of that is having the issue fully aired before a final judgment, he said.

When Sotomayor said the lower courts have been unanimous in their view that the executive order is likely unconstitutional, Sauer said the judges have been making “snap judgments.”

– Maureen Groppe

Roberts says Supreme Court can move ‘expeditiously’

In a direct rebuttal to Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the Supreme Court could act faster than the five years she said it could take to reach decisions.

“We’ve been able to move much more expeditiously,” Roberts said, noting a decision in the TikTok case took only a month. “Is there any reason in this case we would not be able to act expeditiously?”

“Absolutely not,” Sauer replied.

–Bart Jansen

Kagan says high court rulings could take years without temporary blocks on policies

Justice Elena Kagan argued it could take five years for the Supreme Court to reach a decision in the birthright case, which would leave confusion in the meantime if Trump’s policy weren’t blocked while the case was litigated.

“How else are we going to get to the right result here, which is one by assumption that the (executive order) is illegal?” Kagan asked.

“That would be a profoundly wrong result,” Solicitor General John Sauer replied.

– Bart Jansen

Justice Thomas says universal injunctions used to be uncommon

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been critical of universal injunctions, tried to emphasize that they don’t have a long history.

“We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” he said.

– Maureen Groppe

Crowd of immigrant rights advocates amasses in front of the Court

The crowd in front of the Supreme Court has swelled in size since justices began arguments in the case related to Trump’s birthright citizenship challenge.Protesters with microphones led chants of “mighty mighty immigrants” and “si se puede.”Shanta Driver, an immigrant rights lawyer and national chair of the advocacy group By Any Means Necessary, said that if justices side with the Trump administration in this case, there would be an untenable patchwork of citizenship laws between states.“This would mean abandoning having a national standard, which is what the 14th Amendment is,” Driver said.And, she added, a decision in favor of President Trump’s order would be a regression for the country.“It is going back to the time before the Civil War,” Driver said. “And what we’re talking about is instead of victimizing and brutalizing slaves, victimizing and brutalizing immigrant communities and individuals in those communities.”– Savannah Kuchar

Gorsuch asks about patchwork system of citizenship

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the concern that narrowing the injunction would leave a patchwork system of citizenship across the country.

Solicitor General John Sauer said that’s a problem for the administration to deal with, not a reason to keep the national injunction in place.

When asked about other options for broad rulings, Sauer said challengers can try filing a class action lawsuit. But he wouldn’t concede that the challengers could do so in this case.

– Maureen Groppe

Brown Jackson questioned how courts help multiple victims with only one litigant

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether a court could order a manufacturer to stop the pollution harming just one person who filed a lawsuit or to halt the pollution for a broader range of neighbors.

“In many, many, many circumstances we have not required the court to limit their relief to a particular plaintiff,” she said.

Sauer said more plaintiffs could file lawsuits or judges could order relief for a broader class of people harmed.

“It is a feature, not a bug of Article 3 that the courts grant relief for the people in front of them,” Sauer said.

– Bart Jansen

Roberts probes uses of national injunctions

Chief Justice John Roberts brought up racial gerrymandering, one of the examples the challengers have given for why courts need to be able to issue orders with broad remedies.

Roberts asked Solicitor General John Sauer how racial gerrymandering would be addressed without universal injunctions. When a court decides that the boundaries of a congressional district were improperly drawn, that affects everyone in the state, he said.

Sauder said court decisions may have collateral consequences. But that’s different from letting judges intentionally stop policies from affecting anyone.

–Maureen Groppe

Sotomayor says Trump injunction argument ‘makes no sense’

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Trump’s argument that federal courts can’t order nationwide injunctions beyond the litigants of specific cases would mean even the Supreme Court couldn’t make such orders.

“That makes no sense whatsoever,” Sotomayor said. “What are we buying into?”

Sauer said lower courts could order remedies for specific litigants and potentially seek broader impact through a class action.

– Bart Jansen

Sauer argues nationwide injunctions encourage ‘forum shopping’

Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices that Trump’s order restored the meaning of the 14th Amendment, but federal courts then unfairly blocked the policy nationwide.

Sauer said judges in 40 lawsuits against Trump policies have ordered nationwide injunctions, including 35 in five districts. Sauer argued that litigants choose districts where they think they can win, and then rulings spread unjustifiably nationwide.

“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer said. “They encourage rampant forum shopping.”

– Bart Jansen

Would Trump’s executive order apply retroactively?

Trump directed government agencies to stop issuing or accepting documents recognizing the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to parents who are not authorized to be in the country or are here temporarily. That part of the order would apply only to those born 30 days after Trump signed the order.

But lawyers for the immigrant rights groups challenging the order say there’s no time limit on the order’s redefinition of birthright citizenship.

The government could say that U.S. birth certificates no longer serve as proof of citizenship, even if they were issued more than a century ago, they told the Supreme Court in a filing.

“A 70-year-old could show up to vote, or to renew a passport, or to adjust Social Security benefits, only to be told she was never a citizen,” they wrote. “The government does nothing to disclaim these possibilities.”

– Maureen Groppe

Protesters gather for marquee birthright arguments

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in anticipation of arguments this morning.Several held signs with statements such as, “American Born Children are American Children” and “Defend the Constitution,” in support of birthright citizenship and language in the 14th Amendment.

There appear to be no counter protesters among the crowd standing in front of the white marble steps.– Savannah Kuchar

Which countries have birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship was baked into the United States Constitution, challenged in the 1800s and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Countries in the Americas largely followed the United States’ example, which bucked the restrictions enshrined in Europe, Africa and Asia.

Every country in North America and South America – except Colombia and the Dominican Republic – provides birthright citizenship to any person born within its borders, according to World Population Review, which created a map of birthright citizenship around the globe.

Colombia offers birthright citizenship as long as one parent is a citizen or legal resident; the Dominican Republic restricted birthright citizenship in a way that excludes the children of Haitian migrant workers.

European countries restrict birthright citizenship, including Spain, Italy, France and Germany, as do India, Iran and Sudan, among others, according to World Population Review.

“Granting citizenship to all children born in a country’s territory became more common in the Americas,” according to an American Immigration Council report on birthright citizenship. “After the founding of the United States, other countries in the Western Hemisphere also adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship.”

– Lauren Villagran

Birthright argument, once at fringe, takes spotlight

The debate at the heart of the case – questioning the 150-year constitutional principle that children born in the United States are citizens – has long been thought a fringe argument.

But it has grabbed the spotlight under President Donald Trump’s executive order, with a nudge from one of the lawyers charged with helping him try to overturn the 2020 election.

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War in 1868, declared: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court upheld the amendment in 1898, in the case of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.But John Eastman, a lawyer at the conservative think tank Claremont Institute, has been arguing for more than 20 years that the high court’s decision was narrower than most people think.

The amendment was never intended to cover the children of diplomats. Eastman contends the 1898 Supreme Court decision confirmed citizenship only to the children of parents living permanently in the U.S., not children of non-citizens temporarily in the country.

Trump’s order would bar the government from recognizing the citizenship of children born to two undocumented immigrants.

Eastman, who was charged in Arizona and Georgia with trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, filed his argument about birthright citizenship in a 2004 Supreme case and again in this case. Eastman argued that lower courts approving the citizenship of undocumented migrants or temporary visitors were “patently erroneous.”

“This Court has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to temporary visitors or illegal aliens are automatic citizens,” Eastman wrote.– Bart Jansen

Birthright order is part of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown

President Donald Trump’s order on the first day of his second term to limit birthright citizenship was just one part of his strategy to strengthen border security.

Other Trump orders that are being challenged in court include:

Invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to hasten the deportation of alleged members of gangs declared foreign terrorists.

Ending temporary programs that allow work permits and protection from deportation for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Overhauling asylum cases, with applicants no longer allowed to await their decisions in the U.S.

In the Supreme Court case, Trump ordered the government not to recognize the citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrant parents. Lower courts have blocked the order thus far, but the justices could decide whether nationwide injunctions of this sort are justified and whether his order is legally sound.

“It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years,” Trump wrote on social media May 15.

– Bart Jansen

Trump urges Supreme Court to limit birthright citizenship

President Donald Trump alerted his followers on social media on May 15 about the Supreme Court case, saying the constitutional amendment he seeks to limit was never intended to grant citizenship to people temporarily in the country.

“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” Trump wrote.

Trump wrote that the amendment ratified in 1868 was intended to apply only to “the BABIES OF SLAVES.” Despite a 150-year tradition of granting citizenship to everyone born in the United States, Trump said it was never intended for the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.

“It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years,” Trump wrote.

– Bart Jansen

Who is arguing the case for those challenging Trump’s executive order?

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, is representing the states challenging Trump’s executive order. Feigenbaum clerked for Justice Elena Kagan.

Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, is arguing on behalf of expectant mothers and immigrants’ rights groups. Corkran clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

– Maureen Groppe

Who is arguing the case for the Trump administration?

Solicitor General John Sauer, the government’s top lawyer on Supreme Court matters, is representing the Trump administration.

Sauer, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is a former federal prosecutor and former solicitor general of Missouri.

He represented Trump in last year’s blockbuster case about presidential immunity.

– Maureen Groppe

Have the justices addressed national injunctions before?

Some Supreme Court justices have expressed displeasure with universal injunctions, especially Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court’s six conservative justices.

Five years ago, Gorsuch called them “unworkable” and said it had become apparent his colleagues must address them.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them,” he wrote in 2020 after the court blocked an injunction against a Trump-era immigration policy.

During public remarks in 2022, Justice Elena Kagan – one of the court’s three liberal justices − spoke out against sweeping injunctions and the ability of challengers to find one friendly judge to issue such an order.

“In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas,” she said. “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

– Maureen Groppe

How common are national injunctions?

Legal scholars say national injunctions began to plague both Democratic and Republican presidents beginning in 2015 when Texas sued the Obama administration to stop an expansion of a program protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the United States illegally as children.

That was one of a dozen nationwide injunctions President Barack Obama faced during his presidency, according to a 2024 Harvard Law Review article.

President Joe Biden dealt with 14 through his first three years, including a Texas judge’s order blocking his requirement that federal workers be vaccinated for COVID-19.

Trump, however, faced 64 injunctions during his first term. And judges have been issuing injunctions at a pace to surpass that as courts deal with the more than 200 lawsuits that have been filed against the administration.

– Maureen Groppe

Why are today’s oral arguments unusual?

It’s rare for the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on emergency requests, which are usually decided after the justices consider limited written arguments.

They’ve done so only four times since 1971.

Oral arguments not only give the justices a chance to question both sides but also enable the public to get a sense of how they’re considering the case.

And the justices’ decision is expected to be explained more fully than the orders they issue on most emergency requests.

– Maureen Groppe

How has the Trump administration fared before the Supreme Court?

A divided Supreme Court gave Trump a big win on May 6, ruling that the administration can enforce the president’s ban on transgender people serving in the military while court challenges continue.

The majority did not explain their decision or touch on whether they are receptive to the administration’s complaints about national injunctions.

In other emergency filings, the court sided with the administration after federal judges ordered probationary workers to be rehired and teacher training grants to be resumed.

But a 5-4 majority said the administration had to pay foreign aid groups for work already completed.

And in a deportation case, the court said migrants had to use a different procedure to challenge their deportations, but also said the administration had to give them an opportunity to do so.

– Maureen Groppe

This sketch from court shows Kelsi Corkran, who is representing individuals and immigration advocacy groups, speaking to the US Supreme Court on May 15, 2025, during oral arguments in a case about the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Dana Verkouteren

The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed open to lifting a series of nationwide orders blocking President Donald Trump from enforcing his birthright citizenship policy, even as several of the justices wrestled with the practical implications of allowing the government to deny citizenship to people born in the US.

After more than two hours of argument, it was uncertain how a majority of the court might deal with those two competing interests.

Here’s a look at some of the key takeaways from the arguments:

Kavanaugh, a key vote, suggests class-action lawsuits instead: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the conservative wing, suggested that class-action lawsuits would suffice for allowing the challengers to Trump’s executive order to get broad relief from the courts. He brushed away the suggestion from challengers that relying on class certification as a tool raises many of the same issues as nationwide injunctions the president is complaining about.

It’s a technical point, Kavanaugh acknowledged, but a potentially important one. Part of what Kavanaugh seemed to be saying was that there was another way for the groups challenging Trump to quickly shut down the order. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was relatively quiet throughout the course of the arguments, repeatedly stressed that the courts, including the Supreme Court, could move “expeditiously.”

Liberals pepper Trump attorney on practical impact: The court’s three liberals battered Solicitor General D. John Sauer with questions about how rolling back nationwide injunctions would work in practice. They quickly sought to move the debate beyond the Trump’s administration assertion that its request was “modest.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer on whether his opposition to a universal injunction in the citizen birthright case could lead to requiring every individual to file their own lawsuit in the case. The court’s conservatives engaged with that discussion less but several nevertheless raised the issue.

This sketch from court shows D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States, speaking to the US Supreme Court on May 15, 2025, during oral arguments in a case about the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Dana Verkouteren

Barrett questions why merits aren’t before court: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has emerged as a key vote in several cases this year involving the Trump administration, pressed Sauer about why the government is avoiding the merits of the birthright citizenship issue. Her line of questioning drew an important concession from Sauer, who acknowledged the legal arguments defending the merits of Trump’s order were “novel” and “sensitive.”

How soon will the court rule? Even though the case has reached the Supreme Court in an emergency posture, it’s not clear how long it will take the justices to resolve it. The last time the court held arguments in an emergency case, an appeal dealing with environmental regulations, it took the justices several months. Given the complications involved in the birthright case, it’s possible the court will need until the scheduled end of its term next month.

Read more on the takeaways from today’s arguments here.