SCOTUS limits lower court blocks on Trump citizenship order

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that lower courts likely exceeded their constitutional power by issuing sweeping universal injunctions to pause the White House’s order on birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide. SCOTUS approved part of the Trump administration’s request to scale back lower courts’ injunctions when they are broader than necessary. President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order seeks to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born people, only extending it to those who have at least one parent with citizenship or lawful permanent residency.

Central to the case is the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Courts previously interpreted the amendment to mean that anyone born in the United States was automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. Trump's administration is the first to question the interpretation.

What does the ruling mean for birthright citizenship? Justices were tasked with deciding whether lower courts had the power to issue sweeping national injunctions, not ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s actual executive order to end birthright citizenship. Friday’s ruling limits the scope of future judicial injunctions and will send birthright cases back to lower courts. Justices noted that challengers of the order still have standing to sue individually.

How did the court rule? Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the majority opinion, joined by the five other conservative justices. Federal courts are supposed to solve issues using the power Congress gave them, but those courts don't have general oversight over the executive branch, Barrett wrote. When judiciaries feel the president has exceeded his power, courts should not respond by doing the same, she added. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a separate concurring majority opinion, noting that the Supreme Court’s ruling will end the rising practice of federal courts issuing sweeping injunctions.

What’s the dissenting opinion? Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor described the majority ruling as a travesty that would negatively impact families and children. She alleged that the Trump administration gamed the system by asking the court to rule on lower courts issuing injunctions and not the actual order itself about birthright citizenship. The Trump administration would have to prove the constitutional merits of the executive order to overturn injunctions, which it can’t do, she argued. Brown Jackson also wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

Dig deeper: Read my previous reporting on case arguments made before the high court in May.