US Supreme Court says federal courts lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions post EO concerning citizenship rights

Introduction 

US Supreme Court restricts nationwide implementation of EO concerning reinterpret the 14th amendment Citizenship Clause. 

Facts and Background

President Trump issued the EO shortly after inauguration, aiming to reinterpret the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. It would deny automatic US citizenship to children born in the US after February 19, 2025, if their parents were:

Undocumented immigrants, or

Lawfully present but on temporary/non-immigrant visas (e.g., tourists, students, H-1B workers).

This would require at least one parent to be a US citizen or lawful permanent resident for the child to automatically gain citizenship. The order faced immediate legal challenges from states, immigrant rights groups (e.g., ACLU, CASA), and individuals, who argued it violated the 14th Amendment and long-standing precedent like the 1898 case.

Multiple federal district courts (in Maryland, Washington state, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, etc.) issued preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the EO nationwide — meaning the government could not apply it anywhere in the US, not just to the specific plaintiffs.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow or stay these injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district courts generally lack authority to issue broad universal/nationwide injunctions that block a federal policy against everyone in the country, including non-parties to the lawsuit.

Key points from the majority opinion:

Injunctive relief should typically be limited to providing "complete relief" to the actual parties before the court. Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable powers Congress granted to federal courts under historical and statutory limits. Such broad orders have become more common in recent years but are not the default remedy and can disrupt executive functions excessively. The Court did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or violates the 14th Amendment — that question was left for future proceedings.

Conclusion 

The Court vacated or narrowed the existing nationwide injunctions and sent the cases back to lower courts to reconsider narrower relief (e.g., limited to the plaintiffs).

It delayed enforcement of the EO for at least 30 days after the ruling to allow lower courts time to adjust.

This was a procedural win for the administration, as it potentially allowed partial implementation of the EO in areas not covered by specific plaintiffs, creating a patchwork where citizenship rules could vary by jurisdiction unless broader protections (like class actions) were secured.

In response, challengers quickly pursued alternatives, such as class-action certifications to protect broader groups of affected children and maintain nationwide blocks.

Subsequent Developments

Lower courts issued new, narrower or class-based injunctions to continue blocking the EO nationwide in many cases. The Supreme Court later granted review in a related case in December 2025 to address the underlying constitutionality of the EO, with arguments expected in spring 2026 and a decision likely by summer 2026. As of today, the EO remains blocked pending that merits review, and birthright citizenship continues as before under the 14th Amendment.

This ruling is part of a broader trend where the Court has expressed skepticism toward universal injunctions (criticized by both sides in past cases for enabling "judge shopping" and overreach), but it has major implications for how challenges to executive actions are litigated going forward.