The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday gave the Donald Trump administration a major victory in its attempt to end birthright citizenship.
The U.S. Constitution says that any person born in the U.S. is considered an American.
But the court ruled 6-3, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the decision, that Trump's government can narrow the scope of injunctions challenging an executive order he signed that alters that rule. Challenges now only apply to groups or individuals that sue, while the changes to birthright citizenship can move forward for everybody else.
It effectively allows Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship to go into effect for anybody not directly involved in legal action.
The court stated that it is not ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order, rather the scope of injunctions.
The court wrote that universal injunctions — which cover everybody, whether they are the parties before the court or not — "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
"Federal 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," Barrett wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas penned a concurring opinion, stressing that the Court "today puts an end to the 'increasingly common' practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions."
Justice Samuel Alito's concurring opinion noted that the court does not resolve two issues that "potentially threaten the practical significance of today's decision: the availability of third-party standing and class certification."
Justice Sotomayor dissents, in an opinion joined by Kagan and Jackson. Jackson also has a separate dissent directly attacking the Supreme Court itself.
Professor Nicholas Bagley said, "In a 6-3 decision in the birthright citizenship case, Justice Barrett writes for the Supreme Court and holds that universal injunctions are improper and exceed the power of the federal courts."
