Fact Check: Supreme Court Ruling Limits Citizenship Rights to Those Who Can Afford Legal Action
What We Know
The claim that the Supreme Court ruling limits citizenship rights to those who can afford legal action stems from a recent decision regarding President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that federal courts may not issue universal injunctions that block the enforcement of such executive orders across the entire country. The ruling did not address whether Trump's order itself violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act, but focused on the authority of federal courts to issue broad injunctions (NPR, AP News).
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, indicated that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress. The Court allowed for a partial stay of the injunctions, but only to the extent necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs with standing (NPR). This ruling has been interpreted by some as potentially limiting access to legal recourse for individuals challenging government actions, particularly those who may not have the financial means to pursue legal action.
Analysis
The assertion that the Supreme Court ruling limits citizenship rights specifically to those who can afford legal action is misleading. While the ruling does impose restrictions on the issuance of universal injunctions, it does not directly alter the fundamental rights to citizenship as outlined in the 14th Amendment. The Court's decision primarily addresses procedural aspects of how federal courts can operate concerning injunctions, rather than the substantive rights of individuals born in the U.S.
Critics of the ruling, including dissenting justices and immigrant rights advocates, argue that limiting universal injunctions could disproportionately affect marginalized groups who may lack the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles (NPR, Washington Post). However, the majority opinion does not explicitly state that only those who can afford legal action will have their citizenship rights protected.
Furthermore, the ruling does not change the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status. This interpretation has been upheld by the Supreme Court for over 150 years (NPR).
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court ruling limits citizenship rights to those who can afford legal action is False. The ruling pertains to the procedural authority of federal courts regarding injunctions and does not change the substantive rights granted by the 14th Amendment. While the decision may have implications for access to justice, it does not inherently restrict citizenship rights based on financial means.
