Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling

[DigitalDrifter]

US Constitution section dumbass.

This a breaking news story, and should have been treated as such. Not hidden from 95% of the users, who likely would never have bothered to come to this particular board.

 

[San Souci]

Lol..... Yeah the only difference is now nobody has to listen to it. It can only be enforced in his own district.... But then again judges can't enforce shit.

No. They can't. Takes about 2 years for a "Class Action" to work its way up to SCOTUS

 

[justoffal]

No. They can't. Takes about 2 years for a "Class Action" to work its way up to SCOTUS

Exactly.....

 

[Chuz Life]

Is this true?

MSN

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Not quite. The Supreme Court did not rule directly on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order (EO) attempting to end birthright citizenship. Instead, it issued a narrow decision in Trump v. CASA on June 27, 2025, focusing on nationwide injunctions—not the EO itself.


What SCOTUS Actually Decided

• The Court ruled 6–3 that lower courts generally lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions, which had been used to block Trump’s EO across the country.
• Justice Barrett’s opinion left room for class-based or agency-wide injunctions, meaning some nationwide blocks could still stand under specific conditions.

Status of the EO

• Despite the SCOTUS ruling, multiple lower courts have since blocked the EO, citing its unconstitutionality:

• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the EO violated the 14th Amendment.
• Federal judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts upheld nationwide injunctions, using exceptions outlined by SCOTUS.

Constitutional Context
Did SCOTUS rule in favor of Trump's EO on birthright citizenship?

• The EO sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents lacked legal status.
• Courts reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”, regardless of parental status.

So while SCOTUS gave the Trump administration a procedural win on injunctions, the EO itself remains blocked and legally vulnerable. Want to explore how this might affect immigration policy or future executive actions?

• Despite the SCOTUS ruling, multiple lower courts have since blocked the EO, citing its unconstitutionality:
• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the EO violated the 14th Amendment.
• Federal judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts upheld nationwide injunctions, using exceptions outlined by SCOTUS.

Constitutional Context

• The EO sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents lacked legal status.
• Courts reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”, regardless of parental status.

So while SCOTUS gave the Trump administration a procedural win on injunctions, the EO itself remains blocked and legally vulnerable