The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to curb nationwide injunctions that challenge the Trump administration‘s policies left the fate of birthright citizenship — and other challenges California has mounted to White House policies — a bit unclear.
“Today the Supreme Court has left everything, at best, very confusing,” said Rep. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.
“There could be a patchwork of different states that permit birthright and others that prohibit birthright,” he said. “It’s going to be a challenging situation. Where we are right now is unbelievable and outrageous.”
• Also see: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
Sen. Alex Padilla echoed those sentiments, saying the nation’s highest court’s decision “means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit.”
The Supreme Court on Friday, June 27, said individual judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, a victory for President Donald Trump, who has complained about individual judges halting his agenda. But the court did not rule specifically on whether Trump can upend birthright citizenship, as he seemingly sought to do in an executive order on his first day back in the White House, instead leaving open that possibility.
Still, a slate of Democratic attorneys general struck a hopeful tone Friday morning following the decision.
• Also see: Read what the Supreme Court justices said in the birthright citizenship case
Calling the decision a “mixed bag,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said there are still “some signs of hope.”
“First and foremost, birthright citizenship stands for now,” said Bonta, who co-led the multi-state coalition that sued the Trump administration in January, challenging the executive order.
“The 14th Amendment is alive and strong and well, and birthright citizenship remains, at this moment, the law of the land,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the U.S. an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The injunction blocking Trump’s executive order is still in place for the states that challenged it, including California, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said Friday morning.
“While the executive order is still temporarily blocked from going into effect, this decision is deeply disappointing,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “However, California remains hopeful that the lower courts will ensure blatant federal overreach doesn’t go unchecked.”
But Trump, in his own news conference Friday morning, said he would move to advance his proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that have been blocked by district courts.
Bonta, though, said “the fight is far from over,” vowing to continue to challenge the birthright citizenship executive order.
“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president’s anti-democratic agenda,” he said.
What does this mean for other legal challenges to Trump?
Aside from the question of who is a citizen, Friday’s decision may also have a ripple effect on other challenges — including those mounted by California — to the Trump administration.
“The Supreme Court’s decision allows the lower courts to further consider the scope of the district court’s nationwide injunction — which we believe is clearly necessary to provide full relief to the states,” said Bonta. “We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country.”
But Southern California advocacy groups said they are bracing for further disruptions — and still trying to figure out what Friday’s decision means for their work.
“This is still developing,” said Ash Alvandi, vice president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Orange County. “We haven’t necessarily had conversations internally on what we would tell clients. We’re still waiting to see what effect this has.”
Alvandi said there is concern about the potential loss of funding.
The Trump administration has sought to institute widespread funding freezes for federal grants and other congressionally approved government programs. Those funding freezes have been blocked by federal judges who issued preliminary injunctions.
“We’re relatively lucky in that we’re funded by larger institutions, but we still rely on 20% to 30% of our funding from federal and state sources,” Alvandi said, noting his organization received a $2.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development this year for efforts to prevent housing loss.
Correa, the Democratic congressman, warned the decision is likely a “double-edged sword” that could leave Republicans unhappy if there is a Democrat in the White House.
“Right now, people are praising the administration, but this is going to be a double-edged sword, and it’s going to be cutting in ways we haven’t foreseen yet,” he said. “This door is going to swing both ways.”
How are lawmakers reacting?
Republicans heralded Friday’s decision by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court “has ruled. No more abusive nationwide injunctions,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Temecula, in a post on X.
“As Justice (Amy Coney) Barrett clearly articulated, the Supreme Court today had the humility to push back against an ‘imperial judiciary.’ In a land of laws and limiting principles, I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Will O’Neill, chair of the Republican Party of Orange County.
“SCOTUS just reined in the power of activist judges to harass other branches of government with nationwide injunctions,” said Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.
But Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, called the order “extremely dangerous.”
The Supreme Court, he said, “just opened the door to a world where a baby born in California is a citizen — but one in Texas isn’t,” Gomez said.
“As a birthright citizen myself, I am outraged at the Supreme Court’s craven decision,” said Rep. Dave Min, D-Irvine. “While they technically did not rule against birthright citizenship, they stripped the ability of judges to enforce against this by issuing nationwide injunctions.”
“The Supreme Court just made it easier for Trump to steamroll your rights,” said Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano. “By gutting nationwide injunctions, they’ve cleared the way for his agenda, from attacking birthright citizenship to crushing dissent.”
What has Trump said about birthright citizenship?
Trump argued that the 14th Amendment was never intended to be used as it has been applied in modern times.
“That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn’t meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,” he said.
Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868, which, in guaranteeing citizenship for all, effectively nullified the earlier Supreme Court ruling against Dred Scott, when it said Black people were not entitled to citizenship.
However, it was an 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that found that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Then, the Supreme Court sided with Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents from China, in his claim that he was a citizen because he was born in the U.S. He had tried to return to the U.S. after a visit to China, and the government denied him reentry under the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese immigrants from ever becoming U.S. citizens.
Alvandi, with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Orange County, said he is worried about how the ruling will affect Southern Californians who are already fearful amid the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration enforcement actions across the region, even though enforcement of Trump’s executive order cannot take place for at least another 30 days.
“This was one of the last biggest guardrails we had,” Alvandi said. “And it speaks to what we’re seeing in the community, which is a lot of fear and panic. The ripple effects of the ruling today we’re most afraid of is that this is going to expand the fear in the community and limit folks’ freedoms.”
Carlos Perea, executive director of the Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice, a progressive group that advocates for immigrant and economic justice locally, echoed those concerns about potential confusion and fear in the community.
“The most dangerous of all of this is immigrants’ rights issues,” said Perea. “They’ve (the immigrant community) relied on courts to block decisions from not just this administration but from previous administrations. While it’s going to take a bit to see the larger impact, this is very concerning for us.”
Santa Ana, where the Harbor Institute is based, has seen National Guard troops stationed outside the federal building in the Civic Center since June 11. It is the only sanctuary city in Orange County and is home to an estimated 70,000 to 80,000 undocumented residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
