Bonta noted that the court ruling does not completely eliminate the possibility of future nationwide injunctions. If it is found that a sweeping stay is needed to provide complete relief to plaintiffs involved in cases against Trump’s executive order, one may be reintroduced.
In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she argued that the decision to limit nationwide injunctions goes against “basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”
David Chiu, city attorney of San Francisco, said birthright citizenship is one instance where a court’s ability to decide on the nation’s behalf is critical. Without a universal injunction, determining each person’s citizenship and status based on where they’re born or move would be logistically difficult and unfair, he said.
“You can’t require some states to issue birth certificates to birthright citizens and prohibit other states from doing so,” Chiu said. “The idea that a baby may or may not be a citizen depending on where she or he is born is cruel and nonsensical.”
As it stands, the court’s decision did not question the merits of birthright citizenship and its constitutionality, Chiu said. Rather, he is more concerned that the ruling could dramatically reduce the injunctionary powers of the judiciary more broadly.
“We can no longer expect to benefit from other parties when they win court challenges,” he said. “We have to be in the fight ourselves to ensure that we can vindicate the interests of San Francisco.”
According to Kevin Johnson, a law professor at UC Davis, the Supreme Court’s ruling has less to do with immigration and legal status than it does with limiting the powers of the judicial branch and federal courts.
Both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past have had issues with courts ordering injunctions that interfere with executive directives, Johnson noted, adding that the question of whether lower courts should have the discretion to issue sweeping injunctions has been long debated by conservatives and liberals.
“The Supreme Court has expressed a concern with all the injunctions coming before it on various matters, including immigration,” he said. “The court has … lost its patience with all these lawsuits, all these injunctions, all of these efforts to limit the prerogative of the president.”
Johnson said it’s likely that the rule of birthright citizenship will continue to be enforced as federal judges release more limited injunctions. There’s also a chance that pushback from the Trump administration may eventually result in the issue being returned to the Supreme Court, he said.
In response to the court’s decision, Trump said on Truth Social that the ruling was a “giant win” and a hard hit on birthright citizenship, which he described as a scam on the United States’ immigration process.
Earlier this year, Trump issued an order barring citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or legal permanent residents. It was one of nearly a dozen sweeping executive orders aimed at rewriting the rules on immigration and redefining who gets to be an American.
California and 21 other states immediately sued. They were also joined by San Francisco and several immigrant rights groups, as well as individuals who stand to be affected by the directive. Federal judges quickly blocked the order from taking effect while the cases went forward, and three separate appeals courts refused to lift the injunctions.
San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus and the ACLU are litigating another lawsuit against Trump’s birthright citizenship order, filed in federal court in New Hampshire. In February, that judge also issued an injunction — not a nationwide one — and the Trump administration is appealing the stay.
“To any pregnant woman out there, please do not worry and stress about this,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “We are here. We are fighting very hard. There’s a large community of legal experts who really believe that this executive order has no teeth and that we will find a way to persevere.”
KQED’s Juan Carlos Lara contributed to this report.
