Supreme Court Nukes Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

The Federalist ^ | June 27, 2025 | Shawn Fleetwood

[E. Pluribus Unum]

‘When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.’

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.

“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

The final decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joining Barrett in the majority. Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Known as Trump v. CASA, Inc., the matter before the high court centers around the issuance of nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” That is a concept in which any individual born on American soil is automatically granted U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment, irrespective of whether that individual’s parents are legally permitted to be in the U.S.

Following a series of injunctions blocking the order’s implementation among lower courts, the Trump administration appealed to SCOTUS, asking the high court to “‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,’” and limit “those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.” The case and Friday’s decision does not, however, determine the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

In her majority opinion, Barrett noted that the injunctions brought before the Court “reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the...”

[airborne]

And of course, the three lib-turd women voted against the Constitution.

[bgill]

Two wrongs (parents) don’t make a right (right to anchor baby’s US citizenship).

[napscoordinator]

I’m wondering if a democrat president will do an EO to round up all guns. Yes a judge will stop it in one of the 94 areas. But the law will stand in the other 93 areas until other judges stop it. Meanwhile guns are collected until judgement and maybe given back. But a lot of people will have their guns confiscated until the legal process is over.

I think this is a be careful what you wish for ruling. You may not always like the outcome. And quite frankly, we can never complain because we supported it.

[alloysteel]

Shredding forever the persona of the Wise Latina, the Androgynous Fireplug, and the Truculent Adolescent.

None of which are known for any kind of judicial deliberation.

[shanover]

14th Amendment wasn’t meant for the illegals to spawn.

[V_TWIN]

hell, I’m shocked Roberts didn’t dissent.

[tumblindice]

“Meanwhile guns are collected until ... “

LOL. I’d love to have an M-4, but who’s got 25K?
I guess you stop singing after “land of the free...”?

[notdownwidems]

That’s not so, we can complain mightily if a court rules in direct contravention to the Constitution

[maddog55]

Never happen and the government doesn’t have the capability to take guns away from “Americans” that won’t to keep them.

[napscoordinator]

I know. Exaggerated case. But they can get some crappy stuff done that will piss us off big time.

[nwrep]

Such as what? The example above does not count since it is frankly an impractical strawman.

[EliRoom8]

Prayer:
Gracious Father, we thank you and praise you that you have heard our prayers. We petition Thee, Lord, that you would put more core conservatives on the Bench and give us a more righteous Supreme Court.
In Christ's Name.

[Hieronymus]

I don’t know if Barret is generally to the right or the left of Roberts, but that those lines were written by someone not named Alito or Thomas and that Roberts voted to support them makes this a very good day.

I hope that the Woke Womens’ dissent will cause Barrett to gravitate more towards the Alito/Thomas wing.

[hanamizu]

The obvious original intent was to ensure the citizenship of the newly freed slaves, which under the Dred Scott decision (still ‘the law of the land’ at the time) some states disputed. The fact that American Indians didn’t get birth right citizenship until 1924 kind of proves the point.

[Resolute Conservative]

You can buy M4’s for a lot less. Where did you get $25k? Depending on options you could buy 8+ for that amount.

[jeffersondem]

“Meanwhile guns are collected until judgement and maybe given back. But a lot of people will have their guns confiscated until the legal process is over.”

The hardcore left could do that without this ruling.

If they get back in power. And if they think we will submit.

Behind every federal action stands the United States Constitution; supporting the government's action or repudiating it.

And it does so in remarkably clear language: “shall not be infringed.”

[Alas Babylon!]

No, because some recent SCOTUS decisions have already been determined, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), Garland v. Cargill (2024), and Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (2025) all address issues that gun grabbers would be up against in any future court cases.

[HKMk23]

I’m also heartened to see Ms. Barrett crafting this language.

[HKMk23]

"Under the Court’s well-established precedent, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319, because universal injunctions lack a founding-era forebear, federal courts lack authority to issue them."

BOOM!!
BOOM!!
OUT GO THE LIGHTS!!