Fact Check: Supreme Court ruling opens door for Trump's unconstitutional birthright citizenship order.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for Trump's Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limited the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions, which could impact the enforcement of President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship. However, the Court did not directly rule on the legality of the executive order itself, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily (NPR, AP News). The plaintiffs in the case argue that the executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act (Supreme Court, Reuters).

The executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, has been a point of contention, with immigrant rights groups stating that it could affect the citizenship status of approximately 150,000 newborns annually (AP News, Reuters). Following the Supreme Court's ruling, immigrant rights organizations have initiated a national class action lawsuit to challenge the executive order, asserting that it threatens the citizenship rights of children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents (NPR).

Analysis

The claim that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door for Trump's unconstitutional birthright citizenship order is nuanced. The ruling itself did not validate the executive order; rather, it limited the scope of lower courts' ability to block such executive actions through universal injunctions. This means that while the order may face fewer legal hurdles in terms of immediate injunctions, its constitutionality remains unaddressed by the Supreme Court (NPR, Reuters).

The credibility of the sources discussing this issue varies. Major news outlets like NPR, AP News, and Reuters provide well-researched articles that include quotes from legal experts and details about the implications of the ruling. These sources are generally reliable and adhere to journalistic standards. In contrast, the Supreme Court's own documentation provides the most authoritative account of the ruling and its implications (Supreme Court).

However, the interpretation of the ruling's implications can vary based on the political leanings of the sources. For instance, organizations like the ACLU have expressed concerns that the ruling could lead to the partial enforcement of Trump's order, which they view as unconstitutional (ACLU). This highlights the contentious nature of the topic, as different groups interpret the ruling's impact based on their perspectives on immigration and constitutional rights.

Conclusion

Verdict: Needs Research
The claim that the Supreme Court ruling opens the door for Trump's unconstitutional birthright citizenship order is not straightforward. While the ruling may facilitate the enforcement of the executive order by limiting judicial intervention, it does not affirm the order's constitutionality. The legal battles surrounding this issue are ongoing, and further research is necessary to understand the full implications of the ruling and the executive order itself.

Fact Check: Supreme Court ruling opens door for Trump's unconstitutional birthright citizenship order.