On June 27, 2025, in a significant legal development, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to move forward—at least partially—with its controversial plan to end automatic birthright citizenship. The decision does not rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself but instead limits the scope of nationwide injunctions that had previously blocked the administration’s efforts.
What the Ruling Means
- The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that lower courts had overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions that applied beyond the plaintiffs in the case. The ruling restricts such injunctions to only the states, groups, or individuals who brought the lawsuits. As a result, the administration may now begin implementing its birthright citizenship policy in states that did not challenge it in court.
- The policy remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate legal challenge not addressed in this ruling. However, the decision opens the door for broader implementation unless new, narrower injunctions are issued by lower courts.
Background on the Policy
- The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which has long been understood to grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. The administration argues that citizenship should only be granted to those born to at least one US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- The executive order outlining this policy was issued on President Trump’s first day in office in January 2025 and was immediately challenged in multiple federal courts. Until now, those courts had uniformly blocked the policy from taking effect.
Dissent and Legal Debate
- The Court’s liberal justices strongly dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the decision poses “an existential threat to the rule of law,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated from the bench that “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates.”
- Despite the ruling, the legal merits of the birthright citizenship proposal remain unresolved. The decision solely addresses the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, not the constitutionality of the policy itself.
What’s Next?
- The Trump administration may begin implementing the policy in states not covered by existing injunctions.
- Plaintiffs in affected states may seek to reinstate narrower injunctions.
- Legal challenges to the substance of the policy are expected to continue in the months ahead.
Erickson Insights & Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.