Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship 6-29-25

As of June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on a birthright citizenship case, but it did not directly address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the Court's ruling focused on the use of nationwide or universal injunctions by lower courts.  

Here's a summary of the situation:

·       The Case: The case, Trump v. CASA Inc., involved a challenge to President Trump's executive order aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

·       Lower Court Actions: Federal judges in several states had issued nationwide injunctions, blocking the Trump administration from implementing this executive order. One judge described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional".

·       Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, found that these universal injunctions likely exceeded the authority granted to federal courts by Congress. The majority, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett who authored the opinion, ruled that judicial relief generally should be limited to the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, not applied nationwide.

·       Impact: The ruling essentially allows the Trump administration to partially enforce its executive order while legal challenges continue. However, the court did not rule on the legality of the order itself.

·       What's Next: The ruling includes a 30-day delay in implementation, providing time for further legal challenges, possibly through class actions. 

In essence, the Supreme Court's decision is a procedural victory for the Trump administration, limiting the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. It does not definitively settle the question of birthright citizenship's constitutionality. That issue is likely to be addressed in future litigation, as the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order may eventually reach the Supreme Court. 

Important Context:

·       14th Amendment: Birthright citizenship in the U.S. is based on the 14th Amendment, which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

·       United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): This Supreme Court case affirmed that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship, clarifying the scope of the 14th Amendment.

·       "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof": The Trump administration's legal argument against birthright citizenship relies on interpreting this phrase to exclude children of non-citizens who are in the U.S. unlawfully.

·       History of Injunctions: The use of nationwide injunctions has been a source of debate, with both conservative and liberal justices expressing concerns about their scope and impact. 

supreme court rules on birthright citizenship google ai overview

As of June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on a case related to President Trump's executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship

However, the ruling did not address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the Court focused on the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. 

Here's a summary of the ruling:

·       The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions.

·       The 6-3 decision determined that lower courts "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts" by issuing such broad injunctions.

·       This means that while cases challenging the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order are still pending, federal courts can only provide relief to the specific plaintiffs in those cases, rather than blocking the policy nationwide.

·       The ruling essentially allows the Trump administration to partially enforce its executive order limiting birthright citizenship while the legal challenges continue. 

In essence, the ruling is a procedural victory for the Trump administration, making it harder for lower courts to block its policies nationwide. However, it does not settle the fundamental question of whether the executive order is constitutional. That question will likely be addressed in future court proceedings. 

Note: Birthright citizenship in the U.S. is rooted in the 14th Amendment and has been upheld by the Supreme Court for over a century. The 14th Amendment states that "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"

https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+rules+on+birthright+citizenship

Comments

This Supreme Court vote indicates that the Court may eventually rule on the Original Intent of the 14^th Amendment to apply to former slaves and also may rule on the limits of Federal Judges related to immigration challenges.

It’s always embarrassing for the Supreme Court to reverse prior decisions. They will take their time to resolve this one. They have build a “house of cards” and will be careful to keep it standing. Congress is too busy keeping their own “house of cards” standing to write the laws needed to fix this. The laws that were written to solve problems that are now obsolete need to be repealed and replaced by laws that accurately reflect “original intent”. This will require each “Right” to be exhaustively described starting with Life, Liberty and Property, followed by the Rights to Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the Rights and responsibilities of Parents and Families. Congress should also write the requirements for candidates who would seek elective offices and the educational requirements of US citizens. 

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader