President Donald J. Trump scored a landmark victory Friday as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of lifting the nationwide freeze on his executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. While the Court did not yet decide on the constitutional merits of the order itself, it issued a decisive blow to the federal judges who sought to override the president’s authority with sweeping, unconstitutional injunctions.

This ruling allows the executive order to take effect in some areas of the country, immediately restoring parts of Trump’s immigration policy that had been blocked by activist judges in deep-blue states.

“US Supreme Court allows Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country for now by curtailing federal judges’ ability to block the president’s policies nationwide,” explained Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland.

The decision stems from nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, which halted the president’s lawful effort to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship. These universal injunctions—routinely deployed against Trump’s first and now second-term agenda—were challenged by the Department of Justice, and the high court agreed to hear oral arguments in May, an unusual step that signals the seriousness of the legal overreach.

On Inauguration Day, President Trump signed the executive order declaring that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause applies only to children born to at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates this policy would block automatic citizenship for over 255,000 children born annually to illegal aliens or foreign nationals on temporary visas.

Under current interpretations, the 14th Amendment—ratified in 1868—has been applied broadly, granting citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil. However, the exact language states that those born in the U.S. must also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This qualifier, Trump and his supporters argue, excludes illegal immigrants, who have not lawfully submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Legal scholars backing the order assert that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship rights for freed slaves, not to provide a legal foothold to foreign nationals who violate U.S. sovereignty.

The Trump administration maintains that the amendment was never meant to grant citizenship to those who break our laws to give birth here, and that doing so undermines both the Constitution and national security.

Critics on the Left immediately challenged the order, leading to swift court filings from Democrat-led states and immigration activist groups. Lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, claiming the order was likely unconstitutional. But Friday’s ruling reveals those judicial actions as a gross overstep.

Notably, even legal voices in traditionally left-leaning outlets have begun to acknowledge that Trump may have a constitutional case.

In February, two law professors from Georgetown University and the University of Minnesota stunned liberal readers of The New York Times with an op-ed titled, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship.”

“When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize,” they wrote.

The professors argued that illegal immigrants—by their very nature—have not pledged legal allegiance to the United States and thus are not truly under its jurisdiction in the sense required by the 14th Amendment.

“Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?” they asked, striking at the heart of the legal argument.

While establishment media continues to push the notion that Trump’s policy is unprecedented, the truth is that serious constitutional questions have been raised—questions the Court appears poised to take seriously in the months ahead.

President Trump, long vilified for his bold stances on immigration, is now once again reshaping the legal and constitutional battlefield—this time over the very definition of American citizenship.