Last month’s Supreme Court ruling shook things up by limiting the use of nationwide injunctions — a type of court order that stops a policy from being enforced across the entire country. Many thought this decision would clear the path for President Donald Trump to start enforcing his controversial plan to end birthright citizenship. The plan was supposed to kick in Sunday, but a string of lower court rulings put the brakes on the whole thing.
Here’s the thing: the Supreme Court gave lower courts a 30-day deadline to review and possibly narrow or lift these broad injunctions that were blocking Trump’s executive order. But instead of loosening restrictions, judges mostly dug in and issued fresh rulings that keep the policy frozen. In fact, three major adverse rulings just came down this month — all effectively saying “nope” to Trump’s effort, at least for now. And there could be more setbacks on the horizon.
One of the earliest hits came from New Hampshire, where U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante blocked the executive order nationwide. This case stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued the policy violates constitutional rights. Interestingly, the Justice Department hasn’t even appealed LaPlante’s ruling yet. LaPlante, by the way, was appointed by former President George W. Bush — showing that opposition to the policy isn’t just coming from one political side.
Then, last week, another bump appeared when a federal appeals court weighed in. This court reviewed a nationwide injunction issued by a Seattle judge earlier this year. Some had hoped the Supreme Court’s new guidance would force the court to reconsider that broad block on Trump’s order. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pushed back, saying the injunction wasn’t an abuse of judicial power — it was necessary to protect the states suing against the policy.
The 9th Circuit’s 2-1 decision pointed out that the lower court was right to issue a universal injunction so the states could get “complete relief” — basically, full protection from what they saw as harmful effects of the order. Not only that, the appeals court also took a hard look at the executive order itself and found it unconstitutional. That means if this case makes it back up to the Supreme Court, it won’t just be about injunctions but the legality of the policy too.
Just when the administration thought it might catch a break, another federal judge from Boston added to the hurdles. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who was appointed by Barack Obama, ruled that his earlier nationwide injunction couldn’t be trimmed down without losing its effectiveness. In other words, there was no way to scale back the order and still protect the states from harm.
Sorokin doubled down on his belief that Trump’s executive order is “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.” This ruling reinforced the message coming from courts across the country — Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship simply doesn’t hold up legally.
So what exactly is Trump’s birthright citizenship order? Signed on January 20, it’s officially called “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” The core idea is this: the government would stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for kids born on American soil if their parents were in the country illegally or only temporarily. This would effectively overturn a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment — the constitutional provision that guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Legal experts and courts have pointed to an 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed birthright citizenship for children born to foreign parents legally residing in the U.S. Trump’s policy flies in the face of this precedent, as well as decades of practice under various presidents.
It’s important to note that the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling didn’t actually weigh in on whether the policy itself is legal or not. Instead, the justices focused solely on whether courts should issue sweeping nationwide injunctions when blocking policies like this. They essentially told lower courts to rethink whether broad, country-wide blocks are necessary or if narrower remedies would suffice.
This means the core constitutional question about birthright citizenship hasn’t been resolved yet. And so far, every federal judge who’s taken a crack at Trump’s policy has found it unconstitutional. The administration’s choice to bring the Supreme Court only a “technical” issue — about injunctions, not the policy merits — was seen by legal scholars as a clever, strategic move.
Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, explained it well: “The Trump administration was very purposeful and strategic in their decision to go to the Supreme Court on the question of what remedy can people get when they challenge executive actions, as opposed to the merits of this particular executive order.”
Meanwhile, the administration has been somewhat vague about what comes next. During court proceedings, Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton told Judge Sorokin it’s “an unusual situation” created by the Supreme Court’s decision. What exactly will happen when the 30-day pause on enforcement ends? That remains unclear.
The government said it’s working on public guidance to clarify how Trump’s order would be implemented if allowed, but no details have been released. Hamilton told Sorokin last month that agencies are “right now working on public guidance to explain how the President’s executive order is going to be implemented.” But so far, that guidance hasn’t materialized.
Looking forward, there could be more legal challenges and roadblocks. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, who previously blocked the policy nationwide, indicated she might do so again after the lawsuit was refiled as a class-action suit. But that depends on whether a Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court sends the case back to her.
With so many courts rejecting the policy, and more cases likely to be filed, the odds of Trump fully enforcing this executive order anytime soon look slim.
What does all this mean for birthright citizenship? The 14th Amendment has been a bedrock principle of American law for over a century, granting citizenship to anyone born here — no matter their parents' immigration status. Trump’s attempt to rewrite that through executive order sparked immediate backlash and legal pushback.
The policy touches on some deeply emotional and politically charged issues — immigration, identity, constitutional rights — which explains why it’s been so fiercely contested in the courts. Whether or not Trump or future administrations can alter this long-standing rule will likely hinge on battles playing out in the highest courts for years to come.
Quick Takeaways:
-
The Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions but didn’t rule on the policy’s legality itself.
-
Multiple federal judges have blocked Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship as unconstitutional.
-
The administration has yet to appeal all adverse rulings and remains vague on enforcement plans.
-
Legal experts say the strategy focused on technical legal points rather than the core constitutional question.
-
More court battles are expected, with the future of birthright citizenship still uncertain.
In short, President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship faces an uphill legal battle, and recent court rulings have stalled it indefinitely. Whether this policy ever gets fully implemented is an open question, and the constitutional debate is far from settled. For now, birthright citizenship remains protected under long-standing law — at least until the courts say otherwise.
Login