The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to restrict the use of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration’s policies has added uncertainty to a number of legal battles, including California’s challenges to the White House over birthright citizenship.
“The Supreme Court has left everything, at best, very confusing,” Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) said in response to the news.
The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, could dramatically reshape how citizenship is granted in the United States. Friday’s ruling said individual judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, which had been one of the district-court judges’ most potent tools against the Trump administration.
The justices kept Trump’s ban on hold for at least 30 days and sent a handful of cases back to the lower courts. The court also did not rule specifically on whether the president can upend birthright citizenship through an executive order, something Trump tried to do on his first day in office. Instead, the court pushed that decision off, leaving many states in limbo and trying to digest what the ruling means for them.
California is among over a dozen states, including Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, that have sued the administration over birthright citizenship. The injunction blocking Trump’s executive order will remain in those states.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, cautioned against reading too much into the court’s ruling. He called the Supreme Court’s decision a “mixed bag” and said there are still “some signs of hope.”
“The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented,” he said in a statement.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), one of Trump’s chief antagonists, called the decision “deeply disappointing.”
“In a challenge to the Trump Administration’s blatantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship executive order, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether a nationwide injunction is necessary and appropriate in the lawsuits brought by the States,” the Democratic governor said in a written statement. “While the executive order is still temporarily blocked from going into effect, this decision is deeply disappointing. However, California remains hopeful that the lower courts will ensure blatant federal overreach doesn’t go unchecked.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), a strong supporter of birthright citizenship, said the Supreme Court’s ruling “undermines equal justice under the law.”
“The Court’s decision means that constitutional practices now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,” he said. “Today’s decision emboldens President [Donald] Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the Court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also had some choice words after the ruling.
“Has the Supreme Court decided to change the culture and character of America?” she posted on X. “The Congress must thoroughly examine this decision by the Supreme Court to find ways to legislate and protect the Constitutional right to citizenship for all those born in America. Hopefully one day soon the Court will have the courage to correctly rule that if you’re born here, you’re an American — instead of hiding behind the Administration’s game on nationwide injunctions.”
TRUMP TAKES VICTORY LAP AFTER SUPREME COURT LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a lawyer, also slammed the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Overturning decades of precedent does not make the court, conservative. Far from it. Only dangerously partisan,” he said on X.