Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country.
The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US.
The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil.
The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Free P2,000 GCash eGift
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'
The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status.
Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law.
Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically.
Trump's executive order and the legal backlash
Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship.
Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment.
Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts.
The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes
The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote.
The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued.
In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.'
What comes next for immigrants?
Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire.
However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.
The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation.
Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions.
'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Lessons Israel-Iran war has for India's Operation Sindoor
India has to learn from Israel the contours of future war, where the enemy could be already well within the gates, wreaking havoc when it is given the signal read more It may be too early to learn lessons from the Israel-Iran war, but there are certainly some quick takeaways for India. Because Operation Sindoor is not over, and terrorism from Pakistan is unlikely to end as long as the army is in control there. Don't forget also that everyone is watching the war calibration carefully. Lessons will be learnt by all sides in this for their own purposes. And that's where we need to think and analyse and plan for the future. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Deep Intelligence The first aspect of the war is that Israel had access to precise intelligence on the ground in terms of a continuous feed. Fodrow, Natanz and others were static bases and needed no great intelligence capability. But the targeting of some 14 scientists is a different game altogether. Reports indicate that the majority were killed by explosive-laden drones, indicating a very high level of internal penetration into Iran. Israel has always had a formidable intelligence capability. But this was something else, and it's an open question what kind of deep assets it used when the 'go' command was given. For depend upon this. Such assets are not built overnight. That is worrying in terms of future wars. That means India has to not just up its technical intelligence for the future but also use technology to guard against such locally launched attacks – which could be on intel agencies, on high officials, and on personnel of sensitive installations. So far, the thrust of defence expenditure has been in securing the country's borders. Time to look inwards. Sindoor as Template The second aspect is rather the reverse. In many ways, the US operation, 'Midnight Hammer', was a textbook copy of 'Operation Sindoor'. Trump's announcement of having targeted 'only' nuclear sites, clear signs of talking to Iranians, and most of all, a series of moves to end the war quickly, something that the US is not known for. Those moves included allowing China to continue to buy oil – though sanctions remain – thus ensuring that outside powers did not take a hand. Iran was mollified by leaving open the possibility of sanctions relief. Then was his weighing heavily on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, to end his continuing strikes. Since the US could at any time stop its missile interception assistance for Israel, this arm-twisting was likely to have had a telling effect. The Standoff War Another takeaway from both operations is the 'stand-off' wars. Prior to US entry into Iran, Washington made sure that Israel had managed complete air superiority with bombing and missile raids. Even then it used a formidable array of aircraft that included the famed Stealth B-2's, practically invisible to radar, and fighter aircraft from its many bases in West Asia. And to make trebly sure, some 'two dozen' land-attack cruise missiles were fired from a submarine which was entirely undetected, at Isfahan. All attacks were at the extreme west of Iran, indicating that aircraft had no intention of doing a flyby and 'loitering' in the war zone. The blueprint of overwhelming force is used since even one aircraft lost would have been the political end for President Trump. No cities were hit, and US intel would have known full well that the major sites had been evacuated. But the lesson is that when there are no serious casualties, escalation is unlikely. This was also the case in Sindoor, where casualties were few. India did not have such a luxury of a package of aircraft (not to mention bases from where fighters could take off and provide protective cover), nor did it even enter Pakistan. But both provide a lesson in 'stand-off' wars. That means a line of technology development that includes, vitally, the ability of continuous satellite monitoring. India's own space programmes need to take note, and quickly. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Control of the Narrative Another issue to assess is control of the narrative. Even today, the imagery that is being discussed all over the internet is that of Iran. The damages to Israel were kept under wraps, with even the last missile strike by Iran, which mowed down three buildings at Beersheba, with casualties estimated at 4, which seems incredible given the clearly apparent destruction. But Israelis have long been used to violence and have safe rooms, standard procedures for quick evacuation and bunkers. What was hidden even more was the cost that Israel had to take on, with one estimate putting this at $3 billion in immediate costs, while tax authorities estimate costs at more than double the sum of claims stemming from the October 7 attack plus all 615 days since. And that's just claims for damages to property. Apart from this is the loss of man hours and its effect on gross domestic product. But the point is that none of this was apparent in an independent media, with the opposition swiftly putting aside rivalry in a show of national solidarity. It was only after a truce was declared that the Opposition lambasted Trump for interfering in the criminal charges against Netanyahu, which began in 2020 for fraud and breach of trust. Israel, like India, enjoyed widespread support after the first Hamas attack, which, however, rapidly deteriorated as its war entered its 629th day. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Even the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation saw a split – as did the G-7 meeting – over the question of the Iran war. In the end, the general consensus is that Iran can still make the bomb, perhaps in months. The takeaway of this lesson is probably that warmaking seldom wins friends and, in today's world, may not even deliver desired objectives. Far better to build up a narrative, as Defence Minister Rajnath Singh did recently when he refused to sign on to a joint statement of the Shanghai Organisation Cooperation while calling out the double standards on terrorism. But overall, here's the sum of it all. Internally, India has managed Kashmir without inordinate use of force; in fact, with 'one hand tied behind its back'. That, together with the manifold changes after the revocation of Article 370, had integrated Kashmir to the rest of India even more, not the other way around. That's something Tel Aviv should learn. But India has to, in turn, learn from Israel the contours of future war, where the enemy could be already well within the gates, wreaking havoc when it is given the signal. In this, both Pakistan and China are better placed than India. Time to reverse that, either with human assets – which are difficult for obvious reasons – and with technology. Future iterations of Operation Sindoor need to keep this clearly in the forefront. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The author is Director (R&A) at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. She tweets @kartha_tara. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bangladesh pays $384 million to Adani Power to clear majority of dues
Bangladesh paid $384 million to Adani Power in June, significantly reducing its outstanding dues under a power supply agreement with the Indian firm, according to sources. In June (till June 27), Bangladesh has paid $384 million of the committed $437 million to be paid during the month, two sources aware of the matter said. This would clear Bangladesh's "admitted" claims till March 31. With this, Adani's "claimed" dues, while still substantial, will come down to around $500 million (assuming Bangladesh meets its month-end commitment), they said. Bangladesh has struggled to meet its payment obligations under the 2017 deal, as rising import costs following the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022 and domestic political turmoil - which led to the ouster of prime minister Sheikh Hasina — strained the country's finances. As a result, Adani had halved supply last year and full supplies were resumed in March 2025 after the country's monthly payments started covering some of the dues. Nearly $1.5 billion paid With the latest payments, Bangladesh has paid nearly $1.5 billion of the roughly $2 billion total billed amount. Adani has reportedly agreed to waive late payment surcharge (LPS) for January-June period, amounting to about $20 million, if Bangladesh keeps its payment commitment. Sources said both parties are engaged in discussion to resolve some issues related to coal cost and plant capacity calculations. These are the key reasons behind the difference between "claimed" and "admitted" dues. When contacted, an Adani Power spokesperson confirmed the payments but didn't share details on "claimed" and "agreed" dues stating these discussions are private. The 2017 power supply deal between Adani Power and Bangladesh had come in for scrutiny after the ouster of the Sheikh Hasina-led government last year. Interim government, led by Nobel Peace prize laureate Muhammad Yunus, called for the formation of a high-level committee, comprising energy and legal experts, to re-examine the power purchase agreement (PPA). Under the 2017 deal, Adani Power's Godda power plant in Jharkhand was to supply 100 per cent of the electricity generated from burning coal, to Bangladesh for a period of 25 years. After payment defaults, Adani had cut supplies by half in November 2024. It restored full electricity supply, which is around 1,600 MW, in March after the country reduced liabilities. Bangladesh stepped up repayments from July last year, clearing monthly dues. This came after the country suffered from increased power shortages in rural areas. Struggling economy Bangladesh has been struggling to generate sufficient dollar revenues to cover the cost of essential imports such as electricity, coal, and oil. Its foreign currency reserves declined amid months of student-led protests and political unrest, which culminated in the ousting of the Sheikh Hasina government in August 2024. The interim government that succeeded her sought an additional $3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on top of the existing $4.7 billion bailout package. Adani's power deal with Bangladesh was one of the many under Sheikh Hasina, which the current interim government has called opaque. Besides Adani Power, other Indian state-owned firms also sell power to Bangladesh, including NTPC and PTC India Ltd.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump slams $30 billion Iran deal report as 'sick hoax' while supreme court hands him sweeping powers
It was a Friday of fire for Donald Trump, first came explosive headlines accusing him of planning a $30 billion civil nuclear deal with Iran, and then came a Supreme Court ruling handing him a game-changing expansion of presidential power. And, true to form, Trump was not in the mood for calm responses. Donald Trump demands prosecution over Iran Intel leak | Credit: X Trump explodes over 'ridiculous' $30 billion Iran deal report US media outlet CNN claimed that Trump's administration was considering offering Iran up to $30 billion in economic aid to develop a non-military nuclear programme, in exchange for halting uranium enrichment. That would be a massive pivot for the former president, who famously torched Obama's Iran nuclear deal back in 2018. But Trump is having none of it. Taking to Truth Social in his signature all-caps fury, the former president blasted the reports as 'FAKE NEWS' and 'just another HOAX.' He questioned which so-called journalist was behind the claim and doubled down on calling the media 'sick' for pushing what he said is a fabricated narrative. US President Donald Trump | Credit: X Sources claim the alleged deal included help from regional players to build nuclear facilities, but Trump insisted he had 'never heard' of such a plan. If true, the pivot would be monumental, coming just days after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and a surprise ceasefire deal brokered by Trump amid heightened Middle East tensions. Supreme court gives Trump a legal superpower While Trump was on the warpath online, the US Supreme Court handed him what he called a 'big, amazing decision' in his favour. The justices ruled that lower courts would face more limitations when blocking executive orders, a legal shift that significantly strengthens Trump's authority. Calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' Trump beamed at reporters from the White House podium. Legal experts now say this ruling could allow Trump to push through key elements of his second-term agenda with fewer judicial roadblocks. Donald Trump demands prosecution over Iran Intel leak | Credit: X Birthright citizenship: Next battle incoming? One of the first big policy moves expected is an attack on birthright citizenship. Trump's controversial executive order ending automatic citizenship for all babies born on US soil is now set to go into effect within a month. While the Supreme Court has not fully shut the door on legal challenges, it has given Trump a crucial head start.
