Fact Check: "Trump's order on citizenship deemed blatantly unconstitutional by a federal judge."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that limited the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions against presidential executive orders, including President Trump's controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. This order aimed to redefine the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. While the Supreme Court's ruling was seen as a significant win for Trump, it did not directly address the constitutionality of his executive order itself, leaving the legality of the order unresolved (NPR, BBC).
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, three federal district court judges had blocked Trump's order, asserting that it likely violated the citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (Reuters). The Supreme Court's ruling allows the executive order to take effect after a 30-day period, but it does not confirm its constitutionality (BBC, ACLU). Legal experts, including William Powell from Georgetown Law, have argued that the executive order "flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment" (NPR).
Analysis
The claim that Trump's order was "deemed blatantly unconstitutional" by a federal judge is partially true. While federal judges did block the order and indicated serious constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court did not rule on the order's constitutionality itself. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of how lower courts can issue injunctions against executive actions. The Supreme Court's decision effectively allows the executive order to be implemented, but it does not validate its legality (BBC, NPR).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, including major news organizations like NPR and Reuters, which provide detailed accounts of the legal proceedings and the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling. However, it is important to note that while the Supreme Court's ruling may allow the order to take effect, it does not negate the previous federal court rulings that raised substantial questions about the order's constitutionality. The dissenting opinions from justices, particularly Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasize the potential risks of undermining constitutional guarantees (NPR, BBC).
Conclusion
The verdict is Partially True. While federal judges have expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's recent ruling did not definitively declare the order unconstitutional. Instead, it shifted the legal landscape regarding how such executive actions can be challenged, allowing the order to take effect while leaving its ultimate legality unresolved.
Sources
- Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block Trump's orders
- What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?
- Supreme Court curbs judges' power to block Trump's orders in birthright citizenship case
- Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, Potentially Allowing Partial Enforcement of Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
- Birthright citizenship unresolved after Supreme Court ruling
