Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday took a victory lap over the Supreme Court ruling that allowed for President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country.
“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Bondi said on X.
She continued, “This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them.”
The high court’s decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions and limited blocks on implementing Trump’s birthright citizenship ban only in states that have filed challenges against it.
In the other states however, the ruling allows the Trump administration to resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone.
The ruling though does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional.
But the case will have significance for legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration fights nationwide injunctions in other cases blocking their policies.
The Trump administration has railed against the use of nationwide injunctions, fuming that district court judges have the power to block implementation.
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!” Trump posted on Truth Social Friday morning. “Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”
But what the Trump administration has called judicial activism, Democrats and legal challengers argue is a reflection of the illegality of multiple Trump policies.
Democrats argue that Trump — who has already issued more than 100 executive orders during his second term — has far surpassed his predecessors in seeking to shape policy through executive orders that go beyond the scope of his powers.
His policies have been struck down by judges of both parties, including some of his own appointees.
The use of nationwide injunctions has grown over recent decades, spurring louder calls to limit judicial power. The House earlier this year passed a bill limiting the ability of district court judges to impose nationwide injunctions, though it has not yet been taken up in the Senate.
Trump signed an order on his first day in office that curbs birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil if they don’t have at least one parent with permanent legal status, which would upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Before Friday’s high court decision, every other court to directly confront the legality of Trump’s order so far has found it likely unconstitutional. The administration went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to narrow nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Greenbelt, Md., Seattle and Boston.
In the birthright citizenship case, Democrats have argued that nationwide injunctions make sense to protect a right afforded to all regardless of where they are born.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University, told lawmakers earlier this year that applying relief in such a narrow way wouldn’t make sense.
“Consider the birthright citizenship cases. Do we really think that parents should have to challenge that policy one child at a time? Would it make any sense at all, even on a broader scale, for the scope of birthright citizenship to differ in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, simply because those three states fall into three different circuits?” he asked.
“Any time a court invalidates a state or federal law on its face, rather than as applied to the specific plaintiffs, it is necessarily providing relief to non-parties, since the law can no longer be enforced against anyone.”
