Supreme Court rolls back nationwide block on birthright citizenship order, legal fight continues

In a June 27 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for children born in the U.S. to certain immigrant parents to be denied birthright citizenship in some parts of the country. 

Birthright citizenship is the longstanding practice of conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States, including when the parents are noncitizens. 

The court's decision in Trump v. Casa Inc. did not not address the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens. Instead it addressed whether lower court judges had the authority to block the policy nationwide. 

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court found that lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington "likely" exceeded their authority by blocking the policy nationwide. 

The court granted the Trump administration's request to narrow the scope of the lower courts' injunctions. An injunction is a legal pause on the order. It's now up to the lower courts to assess the scope of the injunctions.

"I expect that there will be a lot of litigation in the next 30 days which could well halt implementation of the executive order," said Gabriel Chin, University of California Davis law professor. "This decision by no means indicates that the executive order will ultimately take effect." 

For 30 days from the Supreme Court's decision, Trump can't implement his policy, giving the lower courts time to reevaluate. Immigration law experts said that for the plaintiffs, which include 22 states, immigration organizations and several individuals, the policy would remain blocked even after 30 days. That's because the court's opinion said the lawsuit plaintiffs must still be covered by the injunction.

For the other 28 states that didn't sue, it's possible that Trump's order could move forward after 30 days. 

Soon after the decision, immigrant rights advocates filed class action lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging the law on behalf of people who would be denied citizenship under Trump's order. 

A class action offers legal protection to people who are not formal plaintiffs. Lawyers can establish a "class" of people by proving the law would similarly affect the whole group. Then, the results of a lawsuit can apply to all people in that class. 

Under the Supreme Court ruling, it is now harder for courts to issue injunctions that legally protect people or groups other than the plaintiffs. However, a class action lawsuit, if successful, could have a similar effect as a nationwide injunction.

"Class certification process is both time consuming and costly which is why the nationwide injunction allows for a faster remedy under urgent circumstances," said immigration lawyer Rekha Sharma-Crawford.

Although the justices didn't decide what limits — if any — birthright citizenship should have, some legal experts expressed concern about the decision's practical effects.

Children born in the states that have challenged Trump's order as plaintiffs in the lawsuit "are likely U.S. citizens," said University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt. "But in other districts that have upheld the order, babies born to non-citizens are effectively stateless and vulnerable to further attacks on their legal status."

If Trump's order goes into effect in any jurisdiction, it'd be "highly disruptive," Peter Spiro, Temple University law professor, said. "Birthright citizenship shouldn't depend on where you're born, and the meaning of the 14th Amendment should be nationally consistent."

The Constitution's "full faith and credit clause," which requires states to respect other states' laws and legal judgments, is also at issue if states apply Trump order's differently, experts said. 

"If a child is a citizen in 22 states, then under the full faith and credit clause, they should be a citizen for all states," Sharma-Crawford said. "Whether the federal government will recognize them as such remains a question that will likely land back in front of the court in due course."

Legal experts offered differing assessments on whether this ruling means the justices will lean toward overturning automatic birthright citizenship.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said the ruling on the procedural question means "little or nothing" about the substantive question of whether there should be limits on birthright citizenship.

But Gerhardt said the ruling "suggests the real possibility" that the justices could go along with "dismantling" birthright citizenship in a future challenge.

The court has not ruled on the merits of Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, but the court's decision lets the administration eventually move forward with its policy at least in some states. For this reason, Trump's promise to end birthright citizenship remains In the Works. 

PolitiFact Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.