US Birthright citizenship: According to legal experts, the ramifications of Supreme Court's order curtailing power of district courts to issue nation-wide injunctions are onerous
Representative image (Picture credit: AP)
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case).
It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts.
WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:
The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated.
This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.'
Todd Schulte, President at FWD.us said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
AudioNova leder efter testpersoner i Aarhus til at teste det usynlige høreapparat
Audionova
Lær mere
Undo
Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided.
This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.'
Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional.
Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction.
Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right.
This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.'
THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO:
According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder.
Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship.
TOI had analysed the EO. Read also:
Citizenship by birth curtailed even for legal immigrants; over 1 million Indians in green card queue impacted
Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country.
These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C.
and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days.
According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure.
The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.'
Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at Immigraiton.com said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.'
Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered.
Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped.
THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT:
David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society.
The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.'
Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas).
Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?'
'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children.
It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added.
SUMMING UP:
'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee.
'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement.
Ben
Johnson
, AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.'
' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country.
We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own.
This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
24 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Article 370 was against Ambedkar's ideology of one Constitution: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Saturday said that BR Ambedkar envisioned one Constitution to keep the country united and never favoured the idea of a separate Constitution for any state, PTI reported. Justice Gavai said that the Supreme Court drew inspiration from Ambedkar's vision of a united India when it upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre had abrogated Article 370 in August 2019. It also bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. In December 2023, the Supreme Court, with Justice Gavai as a member of the five-judge Constitution bench, upheld the validity of the 2019 order abrogating Article 370 and ordered the Centre to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. 'When the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country,' Justice Gavai said while addressing a gathering at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park in New Delhi. 'If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution.' The Chief Justice of India added that Ambedkar had faced criticism, with some people saying that the Constitution's strong federalism might compromise national unity, especially during wartime. Ambedkar had then responded to his critics that the Constitution would suit all the challenges and keep the nation united, PTI quoted Justice Gavai as saying. 'See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka,' he added. 'Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united.'
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Major League Baseball Is Too Silent on Immigration Raids
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last week, at the height of the immigration protests convulsing Los Angeles, federal agents showed up at Dodger Stadium, seeking access to the parking lot. Up to that point, the Dodgers had refused to comment on the Trump administration's immigration sweeps and their effect on the city's Latino community. The silence stoked complaints that the team had turned its back on some of its most passionate devotees. By some accounts, Latinos comprise over 40% of Dodger fans. But the morning agents came, the Dodgers finally acted. The team denied them access to the parking lot and a day later announced a $1 million pledge to help immigrant families harmed by the ongoing raids. That's a modest show of support for an organization worth an estimated $7.7 billion, and it hasn't satisfied everyone. But satisfactory or not, it's a clear indication of whose side the Dodgers are taking. Major League Baseball and its 29 other clubs, on the other hand, aren't following the Dodgers' lead, preferring silence. If this is their way of not drawing the ire of President Donald Trump, it's an awkward strategy. Immigration has been essential to baseball's history and continues to fuel its growth. In America's early years, baseball was a new sport for a new country. For immigrants, making a mark on an organized team was an indicator that the player — along with his ethnic group — was upwardly mobile and, finally, an assimilated American. Superstar shortstop and national sensation Honus Wanger, a son of German immigrant parents, was a prime example of this during the late 19th and early 20th century. He uplifted the German-American status, and in his community, he was an icon for making it big. Three-quarters of a century later, Fernando Valenzuela, a Mexican pitcher for the Dodgers, repeated the feat. In 1981, he electrified Los Angeles and his community with a dominant season, including seven complete games and five shutouts, which netted him Rookie of the Year and Cy Young honors (still the only player to win both in the same season).'Fernandomania,' as his early to mid-80s heyday is recalled, was a cultural phenomenon that diversified and drove attendance upward. In 1981, the Dodgers drew an average of 7,500 additional fans when he pitched at home, and an extra 19,000 when he started on the road. Mexican-Americans were an estimated 10% of the team's supporters when he joined the team; now the Dodgers — affectionately known across LA as Los Doyers — are a unifying institution for the city's Latinos. More fans, inevitably, means more kids playing baseball, both at home and abroad. Though there are a range of factors responsible for the growth of baseball internationally, the increase in Latin American and other international players has certainly contributed to the expansion and development of deep international talent pipelines. For MLB teams, bringing that talent to US shores is only constrained by their ability to scout. During the 1930s, a period of notoriously tight immigration restrictions and mass deportations, less than 1% of MLB players were foreign-born. Thankfully, in the post-war period, America decided to open its borders. The result? The number of foreign-born players in the league has seen steady growth over the decades. In 2025, nearly 28% of MLB players are foreign-born, and it's simply impossible to imagine baseball without stars such as Shohei Ohtani and Juan Soto. Those international stars, in turn, are leading a surge of interest in the game and the business of baseball. MLB is on track for its third straight year of attendance growth, and viewership in the US and Japan is surging in 2025. Of course, other factors are in play too, but does anyone seriously think a less international game would be as well-played, entertaining, and lucrative? Trump's immigration policies put that success at risk. For example, under the terms of his recently enacted travel ban, the issuance of new visas to Cuban and Venezuelan nationals is severely restricted. Dozens of players from both countries — Hall of Famers like Tony Pérez and current players like Jose Altuve — have made prominent contributions to MLB for decades. The new policies will make it far more difficult for teams to bring new signees from either country to the US. But even if loopholes are found, the message to players and their families in these baseball hotbeds is hardly welcoming. So far, MLB has chosen to remain silent on these changes, just as it has clammed up over the deportations that are running through its Latino fanbase. Perhaps the league and its teams believe that quiet diplomacy is the best way to approach the Trump administration on immigration-related matters. But if so, there's little public indication that doing so has achieved anything other than damaging relations between the Dodgers and their fans. Meanwhile, other sports are acting. In mid-June, the players associations for the Women's National Basketball Association and the National Women's Soccer League issued a joint statement of support for immigrants experiencing hardship due to the raids. Angel City FC of the NWSL took it a step further and distributed 10,000 T-shirts to fans and players emblazoned with 'Immigrant City Football Club' on the front. Proceeds from sales of the shirts go to an organization offering legal assistance to immigrants. Of course, no team or sport will convince Trump to change his course on immigration. But by showing solidarity with their fanbases, players and teams strengthen the community connections that are critical to growing sports, and the commerce around them. That's a legacy that can outlast any executive order. It's time for Major League Baseball to step up to the plate. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of sports. He is the author, most recently, of 'Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.' More stories like this are available on
