The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling limited the ability of lower courts to block federal policies nationwide, giving Trump a legal boost but leaving birthright citizenship laws unchanged—for now.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 handed down a significant decision restricting the use of nationwide injunctions—judicial orders that prevent federal laws or policies from being enforced throughout the United States. The decision came in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a case involving a challenge to an executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship.
In a 6–3 decision, the justices held that federal courts likely lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that go beyond the plaintiffs in a case. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that court-ordered relief must be tailored to the specific individuals bringing the lawsuit.
“Federal courts have not traditionally issued relief beyond the parties,” Barrett wrote. “The Judiciary Act does not grant district courts the power to enter universal injunctions.”(Trump v. CASA, Inc., Supreme Court opinion, June 27, 2025)
The ruling effectively limits nationwide orders blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, which aims to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents. The 6–3 decision will impact how lower-court judges can respond to the policy and likely affect other Trump administration initiatives. Trump had specifically asked the justices to scale back such broad injunctions, which had halted several of his policies nationwide while legal challenges were still pending.
What the ruling means in simple terms
The Supreme Court decided—by a vote of 6 to 3—that lower courts should stop blocking federal policies across the entire country unless they’re directly helping the people who filed the lawsuit. This means judges can still pause federal actions—but only for the individuals or groups who brought the case, not for everyone in the U.S.
This ruling came during a case involving birthright citizenship—specifically, whether children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents should automatically be U.S. citizens. The Court did not decide that question yet. Instead, this ruling is about how courts can handle these types of lawsuits going forward.
Narrower legal path forward
Friday’s ruling does not allow the policy to take effect immediately. Instead, it limits the ability of lower courts to block enforcement nationwide during litigation, requiring them to restrict injunctive relief to the plaintiffs before them—unless a class action or specific statute allows broader protection.
Legal analysts say the decision will likely lead to more narrowly constructed lawsuits or coordinated efforts to certify class actions in order to extend relief to larger groups.
“This decision is about the scope of remedies,” said constitutional law expert Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas. “It doesn’t validate or invalidate the executive order—it only limits who courts can protect when they issue injunctions.” (Source: NPR, June 27, 2025)
Birthright citizenship still intact
Importantly, the case does not resolve the underlying constitutional question of birthright citizenship. Under the 14th Amendment, children born on U.S. soil are recognized as U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ legal status—a principle that has been upheld for over a century.
Any move to reinterpret this constitutional right would face significant legal hurdles and further court challenges. The Trump administration’s executive order has not yet been enforced due to ongoing litigation.
“Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, in a public statement following the ruling. “This case was about process, not constitutional change.” (Source: ACLU press release, June 27, 2025)
Implications for Filipino American and other immigrant communities
For many Filipino American families and immigrant communities, the decision could limit immediate legal protections if they are not named in lawsuits challenging federal policies. Advocates are urging community members to remain informed and involved in legal advocacy.
The case now returns to the lower courts, where litigation on the executive order’s constitutionality will proceed. A final decision may still reach the Supreme Court in the coming months.
