President Donald Trump’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship through a unilateral executive order has taken a new turn following a major Supreme Court intervention.

A June decision from the high court limiting nationwide injunctions could allow Trump's birthright policy to briefly take effect in some regions while lawsuits continue across the country, as Fox News reports.

The concept of birthright citizenship was established under the 14th Amendment, which grants U.S. citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil, including children of undocumented immigrants and noncitizens. Trump’s executive order challenges this precedent by asserting that the amendment is being misused by foreign nationals who enter or live in the country illegally to give birth.

Supreme Court limits universal injunctions

After the policy was announced, courts immediately acted to block its enforcement, using universal injunctions that applied to the entire nation. These judicial orders prevented the administration from implementing the executive action while litigation proceeded.

The legal landscape shifted dramatically on June 27, when the Supreme Court ruled to restrict the use of such nationwide injunctions. This stops lower courts from issuing orders that halt a federal policy in every jurisdiction unless it directly applies to the plaintiffs in a particular case.

Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the executive order itself, it barred its implementation for 30 days, giving lower courts and challengers time to prepare new legal responses under the adjusted guidelines.

Legal challenges expand in court

Just hours after the high court’s ruling, plaintiffs in Maryland moved to upgrade their case to a class action lawsuit. The strategy aims to protect any individuals potentially affected by the policy after the temporary freeze ends, including babies born during the contested period.

The Supreme Court left open the possibility for broader challenges through other legal means, including class actions or statewide rulings.

These routes are now being explored by those opposing the executive order as they seek to counteract the limits on universal injunctions.

This rapid legal activity reflects the urgency felt by immigration advocates and civil rights attorneys who fear that implementing the order, even briefly, could lead to some children being denied citizenship and possibly rendered stateless.

Judicial rebukes, constitutional concerns

At a February hearing in Seattle, Judge John Coughenour harshly criticized the administration’s approach. He stated that such a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation should come through Congress, not an executive mandate.

Experts argue that the key legal debate centers on interpreting the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment.

Historically, courts have ruled that this excludes only children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces, not undocumented immigrants.

Villanova law professor Michael Moreland emphasized that legal consensus has long favored the view that being born in the U.S. grants citizenship, while acknowledging that immigration dynamics have changed significantly since the amendment was adopted in 1868.

What the policy could mean

Immigration advocates have raised serious humanitarian concerns. Michelle Lapointe of the American Immigration Council warned that children born in certain areas could be stripped of their legal status if the policy is implemented even briefly.

Judicial Crisis Network president Carrie Severino defended the administration’s ability to enforce the order in jurisdictions not bound by a court stay.

However, she acknowledged that modern immigration patterns and entitlement policies complicate the issue.

With different courts addressing various facets of the case, many legal analysts expect the matter will return to the Supreme Court. The justices will eventually have to address whether the executive order itself violates the Constitution.