The Supreme Court supports Trump and gives him the power to deport illegal immigrants on a massive scale

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday that significantly restricts the use of nationwide injunctions (preliminary measures with national scope) by lower courts, representing a major legal victory for President Donald Trump in his attempt to end birthright citizenship through an executive order.

The case, Trump v. Casa, did not directly address the constitutionality of that order, which sought to eliminate automatic citizenship for children of immigrants born in the United States, but instead focused on the scope of the lower judiciary's power to block executive orders in a broad manner.

The decision, written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that federal courts should not have a "general supervisory" power over the Executive Branch. According to Barrett, courts should only grant relief to the parties directly involved in the case, not on a nationwide basis.

"When a court concludes that the Executive has acted unlawfully, the response should not be for the court to also exceed its power," Barrett wrote.

The ruling orders that injunctions be limited exclusively to plaintiffs with standing, thus restricting their national impact. This way, the court partially granted the government's request to lift the bans imposed by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, which had blocked Trump's order in its entirety.

The president had received 25 nationwide preliminary measures in the first months of his term, a record number according to data from the Congressional Research Service and the Harvard Law Review. These judicial tools, used to halt executive actions on a national level, have been criticized from both ideological extremes of the Court for exceeding traditional judicial power.

Barrett argued that universal preliminary measures have no historical basis or authorization under the Judiciary Act of 1789. However, both she and other conservative justices suggested that plaintiffs can still use class actions as a legitimate mechanism to challenge presidential actions, although they require a more rigorous process to certify the affected class.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, defended the use of these lawsuits as "a powerful tool," but emphasized that they must meet strict certification requirements.

Meanwhile, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor,Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan strongly opposed the ruling. Sotomayor, in an unusual move, read her dissent from the bench, warning that the decision endangers essential rights:

Jackson, in her own dissenting opinion, criticized the majority for "losing focus" by concentrating on technical details, and accused the Court of enabling the Executive to "act unlawfully." In turn, Barrett replied sharply, accusing her of wanting to replace an imperial Executive with an imperial judiciary.

The case arises after Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Shortly after it was issued, 22 states sued the federal government, and three federal judges issued preliminary measures to halt its implementation.

The decision closes the current judicial term of the Supreme Court, which will resume activities in October.