The US Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major decision in a legal battle over President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship.

The justices restricted the authority of federal judges to issue broad legal blocks against presidential policies.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the Trump administration, directing lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state to scale back their nationwide injunctions that had halted enforcement of Trump’s order.

The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The court instructed these lower courts to reconsider the scope of their orders, making clear that Trump’s directive will not take effect until 30 days after the decision.

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,” Barrett wrote.

Trump’s order, issued on his first day back in office, directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

According to plaintiffs — including Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, immigrant rights advocates, and affected individuals — the directive could strip birthright citizenship from more than 150,000 babies born in the U.S. each year.

The administration used this case to argue that federal judges should not be allowed to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — a tactic frequently used to block Trump’s executive actions during both his terms.

The plaintiffs contend the directive violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1868, the amendment guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Trump’s team argues that this clause doesn’t apply to children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the country on visas — such as international students or guest workers.

In oral arguments on May 15, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that Trump’s order “reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.”

Opponents cited an 1898 Supreme Court decision — United States v. Wong Kim Ark — which has long been interpreted as granting citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents are not citizens.

While the court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s policy itself, Friday’s decision strengthens limits on how far judges can go in blocking presidential orders during ongoing litigation.

Nationwide injunctions have faced criticism from leaders of both major parties, though many legal scholars and civil rights groups argue they are a necessary check on executive overreach.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 11-12 showed 52% of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, while 24% support it.

Among Democrats, only 5% backed ending it, compared to 43% of Republicans.

Friday’s ruling is one of several recent immigration-related victories for the Trump administration.

On Monday, the court cleared the way for deportations to third countries, while in May it allowed the government to end temporary humanitarian protections for some migrants.

However, on May 16, the court blocked Trump’s attempt to deport Venezuelans under an obscure 1798 wartime-era law, citing a lack of due process.