Fact Check: Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of Trump's immigration policy
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that addressed the Trump administration's immigration policy concerning birthright citizenship. This ruling was significant as it limited the scope of nationwide injunctions that federal courts could impose against the administration's policies. The decision did not directly rule on the legality of Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship but rather focused on the authority of federal courts to issue broad injunctions against executive actions (NPR, New York Times).
The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its immigration policy while the legal challenges continue, marking a procedural victory for the administration (DHS). The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that universal injunctions might exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts (NPR).
Analysis
The claim that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump's immigration policy is partially true. While the court did indeed rule 6-3, the decision was primarily about the procedural aspect of nationwide injunctions rather than a definitive endorsement of the immigration policy itself. The majority opinion did not assess whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution or existing laws; it merely limited the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions that could halt the policy's implementation (NPR, New York Times).
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the majority for disregarding principles of equity and the historical context of injunctive relief (NPR). This indicates that while the ruling may be seen as a victory for the Trump administration, it does not settle the underlying legal questions regarding the executive order's constitutionality or its implications for birthright citizenship.
The sources used for this analysis are credible and include major news organizations like NPR and The New York Times, which are known for their journalistic integrity. The Department of Homeland Security's statement also provides an official perspective on the ruling (DHS). However, the interpretation of the ruling's implications varies, with some sources framing it as a significant victory for the Trump administration while others emphasize the limitations imposed by the court's decision.
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump's immigration policy is partially true. The ruling indeed favored the Trump administration by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions, allowing the administration to advance its immigration policy. However, it did not constitute a full endorsement of the policy itself, as the court refrained from ruling on its constitutionality. Thus, while the decision is a procedural victory, it does not resolve the broader legal questions surrounding Trump's immigration actions.
