The US Supreme Court issues a 6-3 ruling that will curb judges' power to block President Donald Trump's orders nationwide
Trump calls the decision a "giant win" and Attorney General Pam Bondi says it will stop the "endless barrage" of injunctions against the president's agenda
In a scathing dissent of the opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor says it is an "open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution"
The case stems from President Trump's order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors
This ruling did not directly tackle the constitutionality of Trump's order, a case likely to end up before the top court at a later date
There is a conservative majority in the Supreme Court and Trump appointed three of the nine justices
Trump says ruling is "monumental" as he thanks Supreme Court
Trump says he will promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that had been hit by injunctions.
"Thanks for this decision and thanks to this decision" Trump says his administration can move forward.
He specifically mentions birthright citizenship and says it "was meant for the babies of slaves", adding not for the modern day circumstances.
Trump says he is "grateful" to the Supreme Court, as he goes on to thank individual judges for their decision.
It is worth noting that Trump appointed three of the nine justices in the top court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
"We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined," he adds.
The US president says it has been "an amazing period of time" this past hour.
He says in recent months "radical left judges" have tried to overrule his powers as president, adding nationwide injunctions were a "grave threat to democracy".
Image source, Getty ImagesPresident Trump is up at the White House briefing room podium.
He calls it a "big, amazing decision" which the administration is "very happy about".
Trump calls it a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law".
We'll be bringing you the key lines here, but you can also follow along by pressing watch Live at the top of the page.
Anthony Zurcher
North America correspondent
In essence, the Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment.
Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy task.
On Friday, the nation's highest court allowed Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship to go into effect in a month's time, while leaving room for lower courts to curb the impact on those who have standing to sue.
States traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents.
Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may desire.
As we wait for the White House briefing to begin, here's a quick explainer on birthright citizenship.
Almost everyone born on US territory is granted automatic citizenship, it's known as "birthright citizenship".
Birthright citizenship is set out in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which was added in 1868.
Here’s how it’s described in the first sentence of the amendment:“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."
Immigration hardliners argue that the policy, external is a "great magnet for illegal immigration" and that it encourages pregnant women to cross the border in order to give birth and remain in the US, an act that has been pejoratively called "birth tourism" or having an "anchor baby".
Supporters of birthright citizenship point out that it has been the law of the land for well over a century and that eliminating it would create, external a "permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans”.
President Donald Trump is soon expected to hold a press conference at the White House.
Click Watch live at the top of this page to follow along.
As we wait for the White House briefing, here's a brief explanation on the impact today's ruling will have on birthright citizenship.
While this case was about the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, it was a lawsuit about Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship that precipitated it.
Today's ruling will allow that birthright citizenship order to partially go into effect in 30 days, after judges in lower courts had blocked it.
The decision sends the nationwide blockade on birthright citizenship back to lower courts where they are now expected to issue much narrower orders on this and similar cases.
Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House
The White House has announced a last-minute press briefing - for which it appears that Trump himself will appear.
The announcement followed considerable confusion among journalists - and seemingly among White House staff - about whether the event would be open to all or just today's press pool.
If he does in fact appear, this will only be the second time that President Trump has entered the briefing room so far this term. The first was after the Washington DC plane crash in January.
I've just taken my seat. Journalists are streaming in, some of whom appear to have run from nearby office buildings.
You can click watch live at the top of this page to follow along.
It’s important to note that Donald Trump’s order does not seek to end birthright citizenship for all, it’s only to children born on US soil to undocumented migrants and people in the country temporarily.
According to Pew Research, external, about 250,000 babies were born to undocumented immigrant parents in the United States in 2016, which is a 36% decrease from a peak in 2007.
By 2022, the latest year that data is available, that figure rose to 1.2 million, Pew found.
But as those children may also have children of their own, the cumulative effect of ending birthright citizenship could potentially increase the number of undocumented immigrants in the country to 4.7m in 2050, the Migration Policy Institute found. In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, Trump said he thought the children of unauthorised immigrants should be deported alongside their parents - even if they were born in the US.
"I don't want to be breaking up families," Trump said last December.
"So the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”
The United States is one of about 30 countries, external which practise automatic "jus soli", or "right of the soil" - without restriction in almost all cases.
Other countries, like the UK and Australia, allow for a modified version where citizenship is automatically granted if one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.
On his inauguration day in January, President Trump issued an executive order to repeal birthright citizenship for babies born to people in the US temporarily and undocumented migrants.
Many legal experts say the president does not have the power to end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The amendment stipulates that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens".
Trump’s order argues that the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" meant that automatic citizenship did not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, or people in the country temporarily.
Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, issued nationwide - or universal - injunctions that blocked the order from being enforced.
The injunctions, in turn, prompted the Trump administration to argue that the lower courts exceeded their powers. The administration asked the court to rule that the injunctions can only apply to those immigrants named in the case or to the plaintiff states - which would allow the government to at least partly carry out Trump's order even as legal battles continue.
Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House
Over the last few months, the Trump administration's battles with judges who have thwarted their policy efforts has become something of an obsession in the White House.
Today's decision in the Supreme Court was ostensibly prompted by a case about birthright citizenship.
But other orders too have faced nationwide curbs, drawing the ire of Trump and his closest allies.
The White House's Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has repeatedly described the situation as "judicial tyranny", while Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said judges have "brazenly abused their judicial power".
Speaking in May, Leavitt said that there was a "troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process".
President Trump, his allies argue, has faced more opposition from the court system than any other president.
In February alone, Leavitt explained recently, Trump faced more injunctions than Joe Biden did in a three-year period.
Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House
We've just heard from Donald Trump, who took to Truth Social to celebrate what he termed a "giant win" in the Supreme Court.
President Trump added that the "birthright citizenship hoax" has been "indirectly, hit hard" and that the decision would prevent "scamming of our immigration process".
The post added that Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer and other justice department officials will be at the White House at 1130 local time to join the president at a press conference.
We now bring you some reactions from Congress members posted on X.
Republican lawmaker Jim Jordan says: "Today’s decision is a huge victory for the separation of powers and the American people. Rogue district court judges should not be able to unilaterally delay President Trump’s agenda that 77 million Americans voted for this past November."
House member August Pfluger, Republican from Texas, concurred saying this is "a big win for the Trump administration and the Constitution."
The court, he says, "ruled to curb nationwide injunctions and prevent a single district judge from controlling national immigration policy."
On the other side of the aisle, the feeling is different.
House member Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat from Florida, says: "A right-wing Supreme Court majority let Trump rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back. It’s a vile betrayal of our Constitution. We must stand up, speak out, and fight back."
We will bring you more reactions as they trickle in.
We can bring you initial reaction from the Trump administration to today's decision.
"Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump," Attorney General Pam Bondi says.
"This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers at the Justice Department and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend Trump's policies and his authority to implement them."
Gary O'Donoghue
Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC
This is a significant win for the Trump administration and the president.
Nationwide injunctions on Donald Trump’s blizzard of executive orders have angered him and frustrated his agenda.
And while these injunctions are not being removed entirely, their scope is being significantly limited. It will be harder for individuals and groups to prevent controversial policies such as the ending of birthright citizenship from being enforced.
Importantly though, the challenges to these policies will still proceed through the courts, potentially right up to the Supreme Court – and the merits or constitutionality of each case is a separate question to what’s been decided today.
In truth, this is an issue that administrations of both complexions have complained about, so expect Republicans to see this as a double-edged sword.
When and if a Democrat enters the White House, they will enjoy the same legal advantages as Donald Trump will now make the most of. There will also be much more work for lawyers – and who’s not in favour of that!
Lisa Lambert
BBC News
The most senior justice for the liberals - Sonia Sotomayor - has written a passionate dissent that she read from the bench. While she criticised the ruling to limit injunctions as essentially allowing the president to issue possibly illegal orders, she also asserted that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the constitution.
Here are some key quotes:
"As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land."
"That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.
"A majority that has repeatedly pledged its fealty to 'history and tradition' thus eliminates an equitable power firmly grounded in centuries of equitable principles and practice. By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies." Note: by "equitable power" she is referring to the idea that the courts, the President and Congress have equal power.
Image source, Getty ImagesJustice Brett Kavanaugh
As we reported earlier, justices split along ideological lines with a 6-3 vote.
Here's an interesting section from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.
He comments on the increasing number of cases the Supreme Court has been handling:
"The volume of preliminary-injunction and other preenforcement litigation over new federal laws and executive actions coming to this Court has been growing in recent years.
"That trend is in part the result of the increasing number of major new executive actions by recent Presidential administrations (of both political parties) that have had difficulty passing significant new legislation through Congress.
"Meanwhile, applications for stays or injunctions in capital-punishment cases, election disputes, and other time-sensitive matters (including numerous COVID–19-related disputes in the few years beginning in 2020) have also continued to come to this Court on a steady basis, as they traditionally have."
Kavanaugh adds that:
"Deciding those applications is not a distraction from our job. It is a critical part of our job."