Nevada lawmakers are reacting after a divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.
The outcome was a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.
But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.
Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) both released statements after the ruling.
“This Supreme Court decision is a blow to Americans’ ability to get equal justice under the law,” said Senator Rosen. “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. Congress needs to pass my bill that’ll stop Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order on birthright citizenship from being implemented, recognizing that children born in the U.S. are American citizens.”
— Senator Cortez Masto (@SenCortezMasto) June 27, 2025
Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford issued the following statement:
“Today’s decision is disappointing, to say the least. 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. 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.
"Residents of other states — particularly those with Republican attorneys general — may not be protected. While Republican attorneys general have benefitted from the lawsuits that Democratic attorneys general have brought against unlawful and unconstitutional actions from the White House, they will no longer be able to ride our coattails. They must now put in the work they have long ignored. If there is to be a patchwork of laws and constitutional protections, however, I will be sure Nevada is protected.”
Democratic Nevada State Senator Fabian Donate, who represents the Las Vegas Strip and Central Vegas, posted on X.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling opens the door to a dangerous, fractured system where a child’s rights could depend on the state they’re born in. This is unworkable, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
— Fabian Doñate (@fabiandonate) June 27, 2025
The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, the fight is far from over.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States 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.
In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held 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.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.
Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.
The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.
The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.
As a further fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
(Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)
