The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country – blocking judges’ ability to halt the president’s policies nationwide.
The order, signed Trump’s first day in office, curbs birthright citizenship for children born on US soil if they don’t have at least one parent with permanent legal status – which quickly became a legal question surrounding the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, rules nationwide injunctions exceed the power of individual federal court judges (the case is about birthright citizenship but the Court didn’t decide the merits of that).
Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Sotomayor, Kagan and KBJ dissent. https://t.co/Wtbzz4X1Ao
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 27, 2025
The 6-3 ruling along ideological lines found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s order. The decision hobbles a key tool used by venue-shopping Democrats and the activist judges that have been blocking Trump’s path since January – with every court having found the legality of Trump’s EO ‘likely’ unconstitutional.
That said, it doesn’t definitively resolve whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional – a question which could end up in front of the Supremes down the road. It does, howeever, narrow the lower court rulings to only block Trump’s order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing.
In her majority opinion for the Supreme Court nuking universal injunctions, Amy Coney Barrett also juked Kentanji Brown Jackson from orbit.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the… pic.twitter.com/je6FsoXxCi
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 27, 2025
Furthermore, Justices Alito and Thomas note that the Supreme Court ‘completely punted on the issue of third-party class certifications, which will be the gimmick now used to get around the universal injunction ban,” according to The Federalist’s Sean Davis.
In a concurring opinion, Alito and Thomas note that the Supreme Court completely punted on the issue of third-party class certifications, which will be the gimmick now used to get around the universal injunction ban. pic.twitter.com/6zX6EV4Zbf
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 27, 2025
The cases will now return to lower courts where they will play out as Trump’s order partially goes into effect. Once the appeals courts issue their final rulings, the parties could bring the case back to the SCOTUS.
Read the ruling below:
Update:
The hits keep on coming out of the Supreme Court, as a second Friday opinion just backed religious parents opposed to LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, also in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines.
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, challenged Montgomery County Public Schools’ refusal to notify parents or allow exemptions when LGBTQ+ content was included in early-grade curricula. The decision overturns lower court rulings and is expected to have significant implications for how public schools nationwide handle religious objections to inclusive educational materials.
The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, raised the question of whether Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) infringed upon the parents’ right under the First Amendment to exercise their religion when it included storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters in its curriculum without allowing families to opt out based on religious beliefs. The high court’s opinion will directly impact MCPS policies and is likely to have far-reaching effects on public schools nationwide. -Bethesda Magazine
Justice Alito wrote in the ruling: “Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction…Without an injunction, the parents will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their religious exercise, and such a burden unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
BREAKING: Supreme Court gives religious parents opt-out from LGBTQ books
6-3 with liberals in dissent, Alito has the opinionhttps://t.co/FRuWV1KGEV @CourthouseNews pic.twitter.com/IcFnL409p8
— Kelsey Reichmann (@KelseyReichmann) June 27, 2025
Earlier, the Court blocked the ability for activist judges to unilaterally block a president’s executive orders – narrowing down injunctive relief to those who filed the lawsuit, not the entire nation.
And of course, Trump is doing a victory lap.
Watch:
[embedded content]
I cannot understand why this wasn’t a no-brainer (unless three of them had no brain to start with)… you break the law and when a baby pops out you are the guardian of a potential POTUS thus a foreign citizen has 35 or more years to indoctrinate a POTUS
a citizen needs to be vetted as to their loyalty otherwise, technically, they would already be a traitor as soon they became a citizen. (you cannot be a traitor until you’re a citizen… arguably maybe a spy, but without allegiance to a country there’s no action that can be called traitorous