On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, narrowing the authority of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders. The case stemmed from legal challenges to an executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.
Under the ruling, the federal government is now permitted to enforce the executive order, which denies U.S. citizenship to children born on or after February 19, 2025, unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
However, the policy can only be implemented in 28 states. The Court concluded that district judges may only block policies within their own jurisdictions. As a result, in 22 states—including California—and in Washington, D.C., where the order was successfully challenged, the citizenship restrictions remain blocked.
Here’s a clearer, more concise rewrite of your paragraph:
This ruling creates a complex and uneven legal landscape: a child’s birthright citizenship now depends on the state in which they are born.
“It’s absolutely nonsensical and completely irrational,” said Leti Volpp, a law professor at UC Berkeley. “States not protected by court injunctions could face federal pressure to deny citizenship to children born there.”
Let me know if you'd like to adjust the tone—e.g., more neutral, more formal, or for a specific outlet.
0 Comments