In a significant decision on Friday, the US Supreme Court curtailed the scope of injunctive relief that federal judges can impose, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship. The Court ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that extend beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. This ruling came as a response to an application by the government to stay lower court injunctions related to a controversial executive order on birthright citizenship issued by President Donald Trump.

The [court's opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf) emphasized that such universal injunctions likely overstep the judicial authority granted by Congress, stating, "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." The decision restricts injunctions to only those necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs who have a standing to sue.

Justice Amy Coney-Barrett, writing for the majority, highlighted the importance of maintaining the separation of powers, a principle foundational to the U.S. Constitution and reinforced by the [Judiciary Act of 1789](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act). She noted, "When a court concludes the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its powers, too."

The ruling stems from an executive order issued by President Trump on January 20, which denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully. This prompted several federal judges across the country to issue nationwide injunctions against the order, sparking a legal debate that escalated to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that these broad injunctions constitute a breach of judicial power and encouraged forum shopping.

The decision does not tackle whether President Trump’s executive order itself violates the [Citizenship Clause](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-2/ALDE_00000812/) of the Constitution or the [Nationality Act](https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030106.html), but rather focuses on the procedural aspect regarding the scope of injunctive relief that federal courts can grant.

Justice Barrett's opinion was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. However, the decision met opposition from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented.

This landmark decision will likely have profound implications on how federal courts issue injunctions in the future, particularly in cases involving significant policy measures by the government. It underscores a broader judicial pushback against the expansion of lower courts' powers to impose their rulings nationally, beyond the immediate parties to a case.