Image source, Getty Images

Justice Barrett (who delievered the opinion of the majority):

"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion:

"Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be “dutybound” to intervene."

Justice Sotomayor (who wrote in dissent):

"The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.

"The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a “solemn mockery” of our Constitution.

"The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along."

Court's ruling is a significant win for President Trumppublished at 15:39 British Summer Time

15:39 BST

Bernd Debusmann Jr
Reporting from the White House

The Supreme Court's decision in the case marks a significant victory for the Trump administration, which had seen some of its policy efforts thwarted by nationwide curbs.

The injunctions have seen fierce legal wrangling over the last few months over a range of policies and orders stemming from the White House, including efforts to slash government spending and redefine US immigration policies and procedures.

The decision will almost certainly have an impact, with the president now feeling more confident that the executive orders signed at the White House can be applied in practice without being stopped by these sorts of injunctions.

It will also set an important precedent for future administrations.

We haven't heard from Trump directly today - yet - but we notably heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said the decision would stop the "endless barrage" of injunctions against the president.

President Trump has no public events until 1500 EST/2100 GMT, when he is scheduled to meet the foreign ministers of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

That event is open to the White House press pool, meaning there will be an opportunity for questions.

It would be surprising, however, if he does not post on Truth Social before then.

Decision could lead to immediate consequencespublished at 15:33 British Summer Time

15:33 BST

Anthony Zurcher
North America correspondent

The top court’s decision to curb the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will likely have immediate consequences.

Ideological jurists in federal district courts have been able to assert significant influence over the policymaking decisions of both Democratic and Republican presidents.

While notable recent examples include Trump’s executive orders on immigration and cuts to government programmes and workforce, it was conservative judges who used their power to block Joe Biden’s policies on the environment, immigration and student loan forgiveness, to name a few.

Courts will still ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or unconstitutional, but that will come further along in the judicial process. In the meantime, presidents will have more room to act.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes a concurring opinion.

He says that "district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized".

He goes on to say that the Supreme Court, "not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions."

The justices voted 6-3, with the liberals dissenting. The conservative justices stressed that they were not addressing the merits of Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants.

We are reading through the 119-page decision that was split along ideological lines.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the senior most liberal justice, delivered the dissenting opinion with justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining.

Here's what she wrote:

Here is what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say about the Supreme Court decision:

"The Court today holds that federal courts may not issue so-called universal injunctions."

The decision will curb judges' powers to block President Trump's orders nationwide.

More now from the Supreme Court's opinion in the birthright citizenship case.

The top court has limited the ability of judges in lower courts to block presidential orders nationwide.

It appears to be a win for the Trump Administration, which had appealed to the Supreme Court that lower courts do not have the right to block presidential actions.

The document has just dropped from the Supreme Court. It's 119 pages long, we're reading through it currently.

It appears that it will not be a clear upheld or rejected decision from the court.

Stick with us.

Today is the last decision day of the current Supreme Court term. The justices will then go on summer recess until the first Monday of October.

Decisions will begin to be handed out from 10:00 EDT (15:00 BST).

Stick with us.

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum.

Supporters say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system.

The other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws.

Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that in the birthright citizenship case there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.

Opponents argue that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious".

Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.

Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.

• Read more: What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

This case isn't about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to change birthright citizenship, it is about whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect nationwide.

The Trump administration argues that the judges have overstepped their power saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of the nationwide block.

Opponents say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos" and to be a check on executive power.

Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year against Trump's executive orders, some such as the banning most transgender people serving in the US military have been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

• Read more: What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case

Put simply, the Supreme Court is the keeper of US laws.

The justices decide whether laws and government actions follow the US constitution. They also interpret laws passed by congress to decide if they are being correctly carried out.

Americans do not vote for who can serve on the court. Justices are appointed by the president and then approved by the Senate.

They serve for life or until they voluntarily retire, and they can only be removed by impeachment. Congress has only attempted an impeachment once, more than 200 years ago, and it failed.

This Supreme Court case stemmed from an order by President Donald Trump on his first day in office in January.

The order sought to repeal birthright citizenship - US citizenship granted to babies born in the US regardless of their parent’s citizenship- which is explicitly protected by the US Constitution.

After a series of courts put injunctions in place (blocking the order while they decided on its legality), the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that lower judges should not have the right to put legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda.

At a hearing in May, the justices weighed two issues: questioning of lower courts' power to block a presidential order nationwide, and the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself.

• Read more: Trump has vowed to end birthright citizenship. Can he do it?

Brandon Drenon
Reporting from Washington DC

The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect nationwide.

The case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts.

The Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda.

The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos".