The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday limited federal judges in their ability to issue temporary nationwide pauses against executive orders as New Jersey sues to stop the president’s order restricting birthright citizenship from taking effect.
In January, President Donald Trump issued an Inauguration Day executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and other non-green card holders. Several state coalitions filed lawsuits challenging the order, including an 18-state suit filed by New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin the day after the order. Federal judges in three cases issued injunctions blocking the order from taking effect nationwide; the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse those blocks, arguing that judges lack the authority to institute nationwide injunctions.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the so-called universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The ruling means a higher legal standard must be reached to issue nationwide injunctions, a standard that Platkin said he is confident New Jersey can still meet.
“[Federal] courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in her opinion. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Barrett’s ruling says judges can still issue injunctions, but only to the extent “to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” The ruling also says national injunctions can still be issued when a state needs one to receive “complete relief.” Barrett said a lower court must decide what “complete relief” means — the lower court must also determine whether a narrower injunction can be used to offer a party “complete relief.” New Jersey has argued that, for a variety of reasons, “complete relief” for the state can only be reached with a nationwide injunction in the birthright citizenship case.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a move justices reserve for dissents they deem especially important.
In her more than 40-page dissent, Sotomayor argued the courts are voluntarily surrendering a power they can wield against executive overreach. The liberal justice wrote that potential victims of executive overreach, regardless of the issue at hand, should not have to be party to a lawsuit to receive protections.
“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort.”
The decision potentially allows judges to issue nationwide injunctions in cases involving class-action lawsuits, though Sotomayor called that process “cumbersome.”
The ruling blocks the executive order from taking effect for 30 days and sends the case back to a lower court for further legal arguments.
“Although we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision today, we are glad the Court recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm—which is true, and has always been true, in our case,” Platkin said. “We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court, particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President’s approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States.”
The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality or merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order. That order, which some federal judges have called blatantly unconstitutional, will continue to be litigated.
“I am disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court today made it harder for Americans to rely on the courts to ensure that the federal government follows the law, and I have no doubt that the Trump Administration will see today’s decision as an invitation to continue disregarding the Constitution,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a release. “At the same time, nothing in today’s decision suggests that the President’s executive order on birthright citizenship is actually constitutional, and when this case returns to the lower courts, I am sure they will again conclude that the President’s order is blatantly illegal and cannot take effect.”
New Jersey’s lawsuit over the birthright citizenship is one of more than a dozen the state has filed against the Trump administration, but it was the first to reach the Supreme Court. The case could very well reach the Supreme Court again, as the actual merits of the case — whether Trump’s order is constitutional — have yet to be decided.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum argued the case before the high court last month.
This story is developing and will be updated.
RELATED ARTICLES
-
January 21, 2025 -
January 16, 2019 -
