Fact Check: Supreme Court limits universal injunctions in birthright citizenship case.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Limits Universal Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a highly anticipated case concerning birthright citizenship and the validity of universal injunctions. The court ruled 6-3 that a district court's decision to curtail birthright citizenship could only apply to the specific parties involved in the case, rather than imposing a nationwide injunction. This ruling effectively limits the ability of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, which are orders that prevent the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against everyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case (Northeastern University [source-1], NPR [source-2]).

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that federal courts do not have the authority to issue broad injunctions that exceed the scope necessary to provide relief to the parties with standing to sue. The ruling came in response to challenges against President Trump's executive order, which sought to redefine birthright citizenship by excluding children born to parents who were unlawfully present in the U.S. or on temporary visas (NPR [source-2], SCOTUSblog [source-5]).

Analysis

The Supreme Court's decision is significant as it addresses the procedural aspects of how lower courts can handle cases involving executive actions. The ruling suggests that while the courts can provide relief to plaintiffs, they cannot extend that relief to non-parties through universal injunctions. This has raised concerns among legal experts about the implications for individuals affected by potentially unconstitutional executive orders who are not part of any lawsuit (Northeastern University [source-1], NPR [source-2]).

Critics of the ruling, including the dissenting justices, argue that it undermines the rule of law by allowing the executive branch to implement potentially unlawful policies without immediate judicial oversight. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, expressed that the decision disregards long-standing principles of equity and the historical role of courts in providing relief to non-parties (NPR [source-2], SCOTUSblog [source-5]).

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, as it sets a precedent for how future cases involving executive actions may be handled in the courts. Legal experts anticipate that this decision will lead to a reevaluation of how federal courts issue injunctions and the scope of their authority (Northeastern University [source-1], NPR [source-2]).

Conclusion

The claim that the Supreme Court has limited universal injunctions in the birthright citizenship case is True. The court's ruling explicitly restricts the issuance of universal injunctions, allowing only for relief to the parties involved in a lawsuit. This decision has significant implications for the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches, as well as for individuals affected by executive orders who may now lack immediate recourse through the courts.

Fact Check: Supreme Court limits universal injunctions in birthright citizenship case.