"# **Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Landmark Birthright Citizenship Ruling**

*(: A split-screen of the Supreme Court building and a newborn’s footprints, symbolizing the stakes of the case.)*  

**June 27, 2025** — In a pivotal 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory to the Trump administration by curtailing the power of federal judges to issue **nationwide injunctions**—a ruling that could reshape how courts block controversial executive actions. The case, *Trump v. CASA, Inc.*, centered on President Trump’s executive order seeking to end **birthright citizenship** for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, but the Court sidestepped the constitutional debate, focusing instead on judicial authority .  

**Key Takeaways from the Ruling**  

✔ **Nationwide injunctions narrowed**: Federal judges can no longer universally block policies—injunctions must now apply only to plaintiffs in the case, not the entire country .  

✔ **Birthright citizenship order partially revived**: The Trump administration may enforce its policy in states that didn’t challenge it, though implementation is delayed for 30 days .  

✔ **14th Amendment question unanswered**: The Court avoided ruling on whether Trump’s order violates the Constitution’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens” .  

✔ **Dissent warns of "existential threat"**: Liberal justices slammed the decision, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calling it a dangerous erosion of judicial checks on executive power .  

**Why This Case Matters**  

The ruling doesn’t just affect immigration—it redefines the balance of power between the judiciary and the White House. **Nationwide injunctions** have been used for decades to freeze policies (like DACA or travel bans), but the Court’s conservative majority declared them an overreach, arguing they grant "a single judge veto power over federal policy" .  

Yet, the decision leaves a critical loophole: **states can still seek broad injunctions** when suing the federal government, hinting at future legal battles .  

**Reactions and Fallout**  

- **Trump’s team celebrated**: AG Pam Bondi called it a win against “activist judges,” while Trump hailed it as a “giant victory” on Truth Social .  

- **Immigrant advocates sounded alarms**: The ACLU vowed to fight the order’s implementation, warning it could create “stateless children” and legal chaos .  

- **Legal scholars are split**: Some praise the restraint on judicial overreach; others fear it greenlights unconstitutional policies until challenged state-by-state .  

**What’s Next?**  

The ruling kicks the can down the road:  

1. Lower courts must now redraw injunctions to comply with the decision.  

2. States like New Jersey may file new suits to block the order statewide .  

3. A future SCOTUS battle over the **14th Amendment’s citizenship clause** seems inevitable.  

 **Expert Quote**  

*“This isn’t just about birthright citizenship—it’s about whether courts can stop an administration from violating the Constitution before irreparable harm is done.”*  

— **Cody Wofsy**, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project   

 **Your Turn**  

What do you think? Should courts retain broad power to halt federal policies, or is this a needed check on judicial activism? **Share your thoughts below**—and for deeper analysis, [read our breakdown of the 14th Amendment’s history](#).  

**#SCOTUS #BirthrightCitizenship #ImmigrationLaw #TrumpvCASA**  

**Want more legal insights?** [Subscribe](https://qalamkaar1.blogspot.com/) for updates on *Mahmoud v. Taylor* (LGBTQ school curriculum) and *Louisiana v. Callais* (voting rights), two other major rulings expected today .