LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Nevada elected officials reacted Friday to news that the Supreme Court had limited the reach of so-called universal injunctions, in a case related to President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship.
Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
WATCH: Joe Moeller reports the latest on birthright injunction ruling
Courts and federal agencies have traditionally interpreted that passage to mean nearly anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, are automatically U.S. citizens.
But when Trump was sworn in to office for his second term in January, he issued an executive order casting doubt on that interpretation.
'Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth," Trump's order reads.
Several lawsuits were filed after Trump signed the order, contending the president was wrong and asking courts to stop the government from enforcing it. Courts then issued what's known as a universal injunction, preventing the order from being enforced not only against the plaintiffs in the individual cases, but against anyone anywhere in the United States.
The Trump administration appealed, and the case was decided Friday. (It is Trump v. CASA, Inc., Noi. 24A884.)
The ruling
In the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded that universal injunctions exceeded the authority of federal judges.
"These injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts," Coney Barrett wrote. "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power."
Coney Barrett said no universal injunctions existed at the time of the founding of the United States, and that court rulings could only apply to parties to a lawsuit, but not to others, even if they were in the same situation.
"The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history. Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority," she added.
As a result, the court majority limited the injunctions to apply only to the parties involved in the three different lawsuits that were consolidated in the appeal.
"The Government's applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue," Coney Barrett concluded.
Notably, the opinion did not opine on whether Trump's order was constitutional or not, putting off that decision for another day.
The dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in a dissent that defended the idea of universal injunctions, and supported the idea that birthright citizenship is settled law.
"Every court to evaluate the [president's executive] Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it," Sotomayor wrote. "Undeterred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship."
Sotomayor noted the only case in which the Supreme Court held that people born in the U.S. were not citizens was the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling in 1857, which held that people of African descent could not be citizens and could not seek relief in federal courts. That ruling was later overturned, and the 14th Amendment adopted in part as a repudiation of the court's reasoning in that case.
The matter was tested again in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco but whose parents were not citizens. The government claimed Ark was subject to Chinese, not U.S. jurisdiction, but the court rejected that idea, saying only children born to enemies in a hostile occupation and children of diplomats were "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
"Since then, all three branches of Government have unflinchingly adhered to" the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, Sotomayor wrote.
"The problem, however, is that the Executive Branch has no right to enforce the Citizenship [executive] order against anyone," Sotomayor added. "It defies logic to say that maintaining a centuries-long status quo for a few months longer will irreparably injure the Government."
And, she wrote, "by forging ahead and granting relief to the Government anyway, this court endorses the radical proposition that the President is harmed, irreparably, whenever he cannot do something he wants to do, even if what he wants to do is break the law."
The reaction
Trump issued a statement praising the ruling.
“The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the RULE OF LAW in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions," he said. "I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we’ve seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. It was a grave threat to democracy.”
The statement also quoted Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying, "Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation — no longer.”
But others denounced the ruling, including Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who has sued the Trump administration (or joined lawsuits filed by other states) multiple times.
“Today’s decision is disappointing, to say the least," Ford said. "But it doesn’t deter me from protecting Nevadans and their rights. To the contrary, it motivates me even more to challenge President Trump’s unlawful actions in court to uphold Nevadans’ rights.
"Notably, the Supreme Court’s opinion does not address whether President Trump’s order is constitutional, nor does it declare that a nationwide injunction is unavailable to the states," Ford added. "The Court merely says that a universal injunction against the order may not be appropriate in some cases and sets forth standards for the district court to use in making that determination. Either way, Nevadans remain protected."
Senior Nevada U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto also rebuked the court majority for its ruling.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today will result in the infringement of Americans’ rights for years to come," she said. "Limiting nationwide injunctions will have long-lasting effects on our courts, ceding even more power to the executive branch and providing justice only to those with the means or luck to have a lawyer. The Fourteenth Amendment is clear: if you’re born in the United States, you’re an American citizen.”
Nevada's junior U.S Sen. Jacky Rosen agreed.
“This Supreme Court decision is a blow to Americans’ ability to get equal justice under the law,” she said. “By limiting nationwide injunctions, the Court is stripping away a critical tool used to protect against illegal or unconstitutional actions from Donald Trump and any future administration.”
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund also denounced the ruling.
“For more than a century, the 14th Amendment to our Constitution has guaranteed that anyone born in the United States is a citizen — regardless of their parents’ immigration or citizenship status. Today’s ruling marks a deeply disappointing step away from that fundamental truth," the group said. "By permitting the Executive Order to go into effect in select jurisdictions, the Court has opened the door to a fractured and unequal system — where a child’s U.S. citizenship may now depend on their ZIP code or whether their family has the means or ability to challenge the policy in court."
Voto Latino President and Co-Founder María Teresa Kumar said the ruling granted the Trump administration unwarranted power.
“Today is an extremely concerning day for our country," Kumar said. "With this ruling, not only did the United States Supreme Court renounce its obligations to protect and uphold the rule of law, but the conservative justices have also fully endorsed the Trump Administration’s extreme agenda. The Supreme Court is setting a dangerous precedent that will gradually impact every U.S. citizen. ”