Washington, (EFE).- The United States Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of United States President Donald Trump’s request to lift lower court injunctions against his executive order limiting birthright citizenship, handing the Republican leader a key legal victory that could influence dozens of similar lawsuits.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, which aims to deny automatic US citizenship to children born on US soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders.
Instead, the ruling focused narrowly on whether lower courts had the authority to impose nationwide blocks on presidential directives.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight over the Executive Branch,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barret in the majority opinion. “They resolve cases and controversies as empowered by Congress. When a court finds that the executive has acted unlawfully, that does not entitle the court to overreach as well.”
Barrett noted that the order, signed by Trump on Jan. 20, the day he began his second term, will remain temporarily paused and will not take effect until 30 days after the decision.
Scope of ruling and potential next steps
The Court’s ruling centered on three federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts who had separately blocked the executive order.
Those judges argued that the president lacked the authority to override the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the US, regardless of parental immigration status.
Legal experts say the 30-day delay could give plaintiffs time to explore collective legal action. “This opens the door for new class-action lawsuits challenging the order, even if nationwide injunctions are off the table,” said immigration attorney Laura Morales.
An estimated 255,000 children born in the US each year could be affected, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Opponents argue that Trump’s attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment through executive fiat sets a dangerous precedent.
Liberal justices warn of erosion of constitutional protections
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a rare oral dissent from the bench, underscoring her deep opposition.
“The rule of law is not a given, it must be defended by those in every branch with the courage to uphold it,” she said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also dissented, calling the ruling “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
In her opinion, Jackson accused the administration of using procedural challenges as “a smokescreen” to justify “arbitrary and unchecked power the Founders sought to eliminate.”
She warned that by avoiding the merits of the executive order, the Court allows the government to infringe on the constitutional rights of unnamed individuals.
Trump claims victory, revives campaign rhetoric
President Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social.
“Big Victory! at the US Supreme Court! Even the scam of birthright citizenship has been indirectly hit hard,” he posted, referring to his long-standing claim that the 14th Amendment only applies to the children of former slaves.
“The judges have tried to take over the executive branch, but they can no longer do that,” US Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the same White House appearance, according to which it is up to the president to do everything he can to fight for the American people and he will continue to do so.
The decision marks a significant moment in Trump’s broader immigration agenda, reinstated upon his return to office in January.
His push to redefine birthright citizenship was a central campaign promise in 2024 and is expected to remain a defining issue of his administration. EFE
ygg-seo
