What the US Supreme Court ruling means for Donald Trump's birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court has issued a decision affecting President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, and it is one of the most consequential in the country's modern history.
Justices in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines on Friday morning granted Trump's request to narrow injunctions blocking his executive order to end birthright citizenship, or automatic citizenship rights.
The ruling represents a major victory for Trump and allows his administration to push forward with its proposal to get rid of birthright citizenship – at least in states that challenged it.
But the future of birthright citizenship was left unclear by the high court, and it remains possible that changes to it nationwide could stay blocked.
Trump on his Inauguration Day signed an executive order to mandate that children born in America who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, no longer receive citizenship automatically.
It is aimed at curtailing children of illegal immigrants and people without temporary visas from receiving birthright citizenship rights dating back over a century.
But several lower courts froze his plan from being implemented.
Trump claimed that the courts overstepped their power with orders to block his policies, including his birthright citizenship plan, nationwide.
The Supreme Court ruled that judges may only provide relief to individuals or groups bringing a lawsuit, and cannot extend the decisions to cover others without converting the suit into a class action.
'The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history,' stated Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority opinion.
However, the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.
The three liberal justices said that Trump's order is illegal, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote on their behalf: 'The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'
Trump hailed the decision in a Truth Social post immediately afterward: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard.'
Then in a rare appearance in the White House briefing room, he called it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law'.
'Big one, wasn't it? This was a big decision,' he said. 'Amazing decision, one that we're very happy about.'
Trump also bashed 'the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch'.
The ruling keeps Trump's birthright citizenship ban on hold for at least 30 days and sends cases to the lower courts to decide the next steps. More Trending
Justices did not prevent challengers from continuing with their efforts to stop Trump's plan.
The citizenship ban could go into effect in dozens of states that have not already filed lawsuits against Trump's order.
Individuals and immigrants rights groups challenging Trump's order have urged a federal judge to certify a nationwide class including children already born or born after February 19, 2025, affected by the order. They have filed an updated lawsuit against Trump's order for the potential new class.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Teenager caught cowering in bushes after stabbing neighbour 51 times
MORE: Urgent recall for hundreds of salads over killer cucumber fears
MORE: Donald Trump is already selling 'Daddy' T-shirts for £20
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Donald Trump plans to ‘visit his three Scottish golf courses next month'
DON HIS WAY Donald Trump plans to 'visit his three Scottish golf courses next month' DONALD Trump is reportedly planning to visit his three Scottish golf courses next month. The US President is set to head to Scotland for the first time since his election victory last year. Advertisement 4 Donald Trump is reportedly planning on visiting Scotland next month Credit: AFP 4 He is likely to visit his three golf courses including Turnberry which was vandalised earlier this year Credit: Alamy The MailOnline reports that, in the final two weeks in July, security services are preparing for Air Force One to land at Prestwick Airport. A ring of steel is expected to be thrown around the President amid fears of major protests following the US military's attack on Iran's nuclear stockpile. During his first stint in office, thousands of Scots took to the streets in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen in 2018 to protest against his visit. It comes after Mr Trump previously revealed he plans to visit Scotland during his second state visit to the UK. Advertisement The US President was given the historic invitation to officially come to Britain. It is the first time an American leader has been offered as second state visit. He was handed the invitation by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the White House. Mr Trump was hoping to informally meet King Charles this summer at one of his Scottish residences - Balmoral or Dumfries House - ahead of the second state visit likely to take place in September. Advertisement But it is understood that their diaries do not align. The President is likely to visit his Turnberry golf course in Ayrshire - which was vandalised by pro-Palestinian protesters in March. 'Daddy' Trump stopped Israel and Iran war, Nato chief tells 'strong' Don He will also visit his controversial Trump International course in Aberdeen. And Mr Trump may also take time to check in on his brand new 18-hole course, which is set to open at the Aberdeenshire property, named the MacLeod course after the President's mum. Advertisement A Trump visit to Scotland has proved controversial both politicians and the public. First Minister John Swinney called for his second visit to be axed after Trump's explosive bust-up with Ukrainian president Zelensky in the Oval Office. But the SNP leader was branded a hypocrite after he met with Eric Trump over tea and biscuits at Bute House. And several people have been charged over alleged vandalism at the President's Turnberry golf course. Advertisement 4 He will also visit his controversial Trump International course in Aberdeen Credit: AFP
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
At least 81 killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, as Trump reiterates calls for ceasefire
US President Donald Trump has reiterated calls for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, as Gaza's health authorities said 81 people were killed in Israeli strikes in the past 24 hours. In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, he wrote: 'MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!' It comes as an Israeli official said plans were being made for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to travel to Washington DC in the coming weeks, a sign there may be movement on a new deal. On Friday, Trump raised expectations Friday for a deal, saying there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters, he said, 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' Despite an eight-week ceasefire reached just as Trump was taking office earlier this year, attempts since then to bring the sides toward a new agreement have failed. Meanwhile, the Israeli military on Sunday ordered a mass evacuation of Palestinians in large swaths of northern Gaza, an early target of the war that has been severely damaged by multiple rounds of fighting. Col. Avichay Adraee, a military spokesperson, posted the order on social media. It includes multiple neighbourhoods in eastern and northern Gaza City, as well as Jabaliya refugee camp. The military will expand its escalating attacks to the city's northern section, calling for people to move southward to the Muwasi area in southern Gaza, Adraee said. Hundreds of thousands of people are in northern Gaza following their return during a ceasefire earlier this year. In Iran, at least 71 people were killed in an Israeli attack on Tehran's Evin prison, Iran's judiciary said. The attack took place on 23 June and hit several prison buildings and prompted concerns from rights groups about the safety of the inmates. Evin prison is a notorious facility where many political activists have been held. Judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir posted on the office's official Mizan news agency website Sunday that those killed included staff, soldiers, prisoners and members of visiting families. Iran had not previously announced any death figures. On Sunday, Iran confirmed that top prosecutor Ali Ghanaatkar, whose prosecution of dissidents, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi, led to widespread criticism by human rights groups, had been killed in the attack and would be buried at a shrine in Qom. From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below...
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
