Key takeaways from US supreme court’s ruling on judges’ power and birthright citizenship

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to curb judges’ authority to block policies nationwide, a win for Trump amid his efforts to end birthright citizenship. The decision does not greenlight his order but restricts lower courts’ use of sweeping injunctions.

• Vibhuti Pathak
• 28 June, 2025

Follow Us

By: Vibhuti Pathak

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on June 27, 2025, that could reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. In a 6-3 decision, the justices sided with president Donald Trump, significantly limiting the ability of federal judges to issue broad, nationwide injunctions that block government policies while legal challenges are underway.

Although the case centered around Trump’s controversial executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the Court did not decide on the order’s legality. Instead, the ruling focused on the procedural power of federal courts, with far-reaching implications for how future presidential actions can be challenged and checked in court. Here are the key takeaways from this consequential decision:

1. Federal Judges’ Power Curtailed

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling restricts federal judges from issuing broad nationwide injunctions that block executive policies. This decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, declares such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority” granted by Congress.

2. Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Remains Blocked

While the ruling limits judicial power, it does not immediately allow Trump’s executive order to take effect. The policy—denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one parent is a citizen or green card holder—remains on hold pending further litigation.

3. No Ruling on Constitutionality

The Court deliberately avoided addressing whether Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Instead, it focused solely on the procedural question of judicial authority, leaving the constitutional battle for lower courts.

4. Conservative-Liberal Split

The decision split along ideological lines:

• Conservative majority (Barrett, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas) backed limiting judicial overreach.
• Liberal dissenters (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan) warned of “executive lawlessness.” Sotomayor called the ruling “shameful” and read her dissent aloud for 20 minutes.

5. Win for Presidential Power

Trump celebrated the ruling as a “GIANT WIN,” emphasizing its impact on future executive actions. The decision weakens a key tool used against his policies (e.g., immigration bans, transgender military bans), which faced over 60 nationwide injunctions during his first term.

6. New Legal Avenues Emerge

Though nationwide injunctions are curtailed, the Court endorsed alternatives:

• Class-action lawsuits: Immigrant rights groups immediately filed new suits seeking protection for affected families.
• State-led challenges: 22 Democratic states plan to argue for injunctions based on cross-border harms (e.g., pregnant people traveling to “safe” states).

7. Dissent Warns of Constitutional Crisis

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissent called the ruling an “existential threat to the rule of law,” predicting unchecked executive power would lead to the end of “our beloved constitutional republic.”

8. What’s Next?

• Immediate impact: Lower courts must reevaluate existing injunctions against Trump’s order under the new guidelines.
• Long-term: The birthright citizenship battle will likely return to the Supreme Court, with Attorney General Pam Bondi predicting a final ruling by October 2025.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling prioritizes executive authority over judicial checks, leaving Trump’s birthright citizenship policy in limbo while reshaping how policies are challenged. Though a tactical win for Trump, the constitutional showdown over the 14th Amendment looms, with dissenters warning of democratic erosion.