New Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship for Future Children of Undocumented Immigrants in Over Two Dozen States.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, in a 6–3 decision, that lower federal courts do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential orders.

While the ruling does not directly address the legality of former President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders a right protected under the 14th Amendment it effectively lifts nationwide blocks imposed by federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that federal judges "do not exercise general oversight over the executive branch" and that their authority is limited to resolving specific cases as granted by Congress. “When a court concludes that the Executive has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to also overstep its authority,” Barrett wrote.

The ruling, which allows Trump’s order to take effect after a 30-day waiting period, marks a political victory for the Republican president, who signed the directive on January 20, the day he was inaugurated for a second term. According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute, the measure could affect roughly 255,000 babies born each year in the United States to non-permanent resident parents.

Importantly, the executive order does not revoke citizenship from children who have already been born to undocumented immigrants. Instead, it will apply only to future births meaning babies born after the order takes effect and will impact thousands of families across several U.S. states. Among those most affected will be Mexican migrant families expecting children in the following 29 states:

* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arkansas
* Florida
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Louisiana
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* New Hampshire
* North Dakota
* Ohio
* Oklahoma
* Pennsylvania
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Utah
* Virginia
* West Virginia
* Wyoming
 
These states, where Republican-led legislatures have largely supported the executive order, are expected to follow federal guidance in enforcing the restriction on birthright citizenship.

Reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision came swiftly. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced her dissent directly from the bench—an unusual move underscoring the depth of her concern. “The rule of law is not self-sustaining… it will endure only if those with the courage to defend it in each branch of government rise to the occasion. Today, the Court abandons its vital role in that effort,” she declared.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also warned that the ruling could enable the Executive to infringe upon constitutional rights of individuals not named in lawsuits a shift she described as an “existential threat” to the rule of law.

Legal experts noted that while the Supreme Court’s decision does not settle the constitutional question surrounding Trump’s order, it leaves room for civil rights groups to file class-action lawsuits before the policy takes effect. If implemented, the order could fundamentally alter the interpretation of birthright citizenship a cornerstone of both the U.S. immigration system and civil rights protections.

In the meantime, the executive order remains temporarily on hold, but the Supreme Court’s decision signals a potential transformation in how federal courts can intervene in executive actions.