In a significant ruling on Friday, June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump by allowing the administration to limit nationwide judicial orders that had been preventing the enforcement of his controversial policy to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. This decision marks a crucial moment in Trump’s broader efforts to impose more restrictive immigration rules.
The 6-3 decision, with the court’s liberal justices in dissent, now returns the case to the lower courts. These courts are tasked with determining how this ruling should be applied in practice. While the Supreme Court did not directly address whether the birthright citizenship ban itself is constitutional, the judgment nonetheless clears a procedural hurdle for Trump’s policy to potentially advance further.
The Trump administration’s request to the high court did not focus on a definitive ruling about the legality of denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. under these circumstances. Instead, the administration argued that lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing universal injunctions, which blocked the policy from taking effect across the entire country during ongoing litigation.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, challenged the legitimacy of these broad, nationwide court orders. She argued that such actions go beyond the judicial powers granted by Congress. “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch,’” she wrote. “But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
This reasoning reflects the court’s growing discomfort with the expansive power lower courts have used in recent years to block major federal policies nationwide. Justices and legal scholars have increasingly scrutinized the use of nationwide injunctions, particularly in cases involving contentious policies from both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal member of the court, issued a strongly worded dissent. Speaking directly from the bench, she expressed profound opposition to the ruling, describing it as a judicial failure with severe consequences. She stated that the decision was a “travesty” and warned that it would “cause chaos for the families of all affected children.”
The court’s ruling was among six released on the final day of its current term, highlighting the importance and urgency of the decisions being made. The ruling stops short of validating Trump’s executive order but does reduce the ability of lower courts to impose sweeping national blocks while the legality of such orders is being debated.
The use of nationwide injunctions has long sparked criticism from both Democratic and Republican leaders. These types of judicial orders, which halt the implementation of policies across the country, are intended to prevent potential harm while lawsuits proceed. However, critics argue they give disproportionate influence to individual judges and undermine the democratic process.
The broader issue underlying this legal battle is whether Trump has the authority to eliminate birthright citizenship for certain groups of U.S.-born children. The executive order signed by Trump on his return to office aims to deny citizenship to those born on American soil if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
Trump’s policy is part of a sweeping immigration agenda that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. His administration has previously moved to ban travelers from over a dozen nations, accelerate deportations—particularly of individuals suspected of gang affiliation from countries like Venezuela—limit refugee admissions, and strip legal protections from over half a million migrants residing in the U.S.
The order to end birthright citizenship sparked immediate legal backlash. Twenty-two states and numerous immigrant advocacy organizations filed lawsuits, arguing that the move conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and previous rulings from the courts.
Central to the argument is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War. This amendment established citizenship rights for formerly enslaved individuals and stated that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. This clause was designed to overrule the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had denied Black Americans the right to citizenship.
Trump and his supporters contend that the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are not truly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because their parents lack legal status. Based on this interpretation, they believe these children do not qualify for automatic citizenship.
However, this view is strongly opposed by most constitutional experts, legal scholars, and immigration advocates. They argue that Trump’s interpretation would require a dramatic re-reading of the 14th Amendment and goes against long-standing legal precedent. In particular, they point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld that a child born in the United States to immigrant parents—who were not citizens—was nonetheless an American citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were subjects of the Chinese Emperor, yet the court affirmed his citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
This precedent forms a central pillar in the opposition’s legal challenge. Critics argue that excluding certain children born in the U.S. from citizenship sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door to broader exclusions based on ancestry or parentage.
The high court’s latest decision does not determine whether Trump’s executive order will ultimately stand. Instead, it allows the policy to be more easily implemented by lifting the universal injunctions that had previously blocked it across the country. This procedural win makes it harder for opponents to prevent enforcement of the order while they continue their legal fight.
Moving forward, the legal battle over birthright citizenship is likely to return to the lower courts, where judges will weigh constitutional arguments in greater detail. Given the Supreme Court’s reluctance to address the constitutional question directly in this instance, it remains to be seen how and when the justices might eventually rule on the core issue of whether children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents can be denied citizenship.
For now, Trump and his supporters have scored a procedural victory that may allow the policy to take effect in parts of the country—unless lower courts find other grounds to block it. However, the controversy is far from over, and with lawsuits continuing to unfold across multiple jurisdictions, the future of birthright citizenship in America remains uncertain.
ITServe Alliance leaders met with Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican Congressman representing Ohio’s 4th District. The powerful Chairman of the House 
ITServe supports the HIRE ACT Bill (High Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment). Innovation, STEM education, and avoiding brain drain are the highlights of the Bill. Another area, where ITServe has focused is the STEM Program to promote the “American Ingenuity Account” to fund State-administered grants for STEM education and worker training. Enhancing the current H1B CAP limits – from 65,000 to 130,000 per year has been a major area where ITServe has placed its efforts in recent years.
“The ITServe Alliance is consistently working to protect its members’ needs. To that end, ITServe Alliance, through its PAC teams, advocated on Capitol Hill and with the US Administration. Capitol Hill Day serves as a perfect platform to communicate our collective voice with key policymakers on important issues to our members,” added Amar Varada, ITServe Governing Board member.
Rep. Krishnamoorthy lauded the contributions of ITServe members to the nation. He said, “I look at you today. You chose Team America. You come here and bless this country with your gifts, with your talents, with your energy, with your ideas, with your industry, with your ability to make it happen. And that’s what you did. You made your company, you hired people, you created jobs. And that’s what you’re trying to do over and over and over again. You’re trying to replicate that success.”
“AAPI Legislative Day is a flagship annual event that is eagerly awaited to rekindle and renew our energy in bringing up the issues that we need to bring to the attention of national policy makers and leaders of the US Congress on Capitol Hill,” said Dr. Amit Chakrabarty, president-elect of AAPI. “It is a tradition of nearly three decades, which has brought many important transformations in National Healthcare policies that have helped Physicians of Indian Origin. Now, it is the need of the day to renew our friendship with new leadership under President Donald Trump and Vice President J D Vance and brief the Congressional leadership on issues that are important to us.”
Anju Vallabhaneni, President of ITServe, while emphasizing the importance of Capitol Hill Day, said, “ITServe Alliance’s Capitol Hill Day will serve as a powerful platform in educating policymakers on the issues that are important to our members and the business community, ensuring our needs and views are reflected in policy debates and outcomes.”
