In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
Jun 27, 2025, 1:50 PM
This artist sketch depicts Justice Chief Justice John Roberts, from left, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Brett Kavanaugh as the Justices announce opinions at the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, June 27, 2025. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)
Credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
(Dana Verkouteren via AP)
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges.
The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country.
Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court’s 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have “unbridled authority” to enforce the president’s duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor’s dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that.
“For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,” Jackson wrote.
Barrett called Jackson’s arguments “extreme” and said her reasoning was not tethered “to any doctrine whatsoever.”
“She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” Barrett wrote.
She later stated: “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution.
“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,” she wrote. “Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”
Sotomayor also wrote that Trump’s order is “patently unconstitutional under settled law,” and argued that granting relief through Friday’s decision “is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.”
“The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort,” she wrote.
Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children “stateless,” risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs.
Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” she wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.
“These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. “Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.”
The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts.
One of the groups that challenged Trump’s order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump’s order goes into effect.
“Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,” said George Escobar, CASA’s chief of programs and services.
