Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield today responded to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions—but emphasized that the fight over the constitutionality of President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is far from over.
The ruling does not weigh in on the merits of the Trump administration’s executive order, which seeks to end citizenship rights for children born in the United States to undocumented parents. Instead, the Court focused on a narrower procedural issue: whether district courts have the authority to block such policies nationwide before the full legal process plays out.
“While we’re disappointed in the Court’s decision to restrict how lower courts can respond to unlawful federal actions, it’s important to be clear – this case is still moving forward,” said Rayfield. “The question of whether a president can unilaterally erase birthright citizenship is not resolved – and Oregon will continue fighting to make sure the answer is no.”
Oregon and the other plaintiffs seek to challenge Trump’s executive order as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal immigration law. The Constitution guarantees that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status—a principle upheld by the Supreme Court for more than a century.
Oregon’s court filings have detailed how the executive order, if allowed to stand, would cause immediate harm to children and families, increase administrative burdens on state agencies, and jeopardize federal funding tied to citizenship status—including Medicaid, CHIP, and other vital programs.
Attorney General Rayfield did express concern about how the Court’s ruling today could limit the ability of lower courts to respond quickly to unlawful actions that have a nationwide effect.
“Universal injunctions have historically been a crucial tool when unlawful policies threaten to cause widespread, immediate damage,” Rayfield said. “Without that tool, there’s a risk that harmful policies could take effect before courts have a chance to rule on their legality. That’s something we’ll be watching closely going forward.”
In its opinion, the Supreme Court recognized that nationwide orders could be appropriate in some circumstances to protect plaintiffs from harm. The multistate lawsuit challenging Trump’s order will now go back to the lower courts, which will have an opportunity to order injunctive relief that affords complete relief to the plaintiff states and complies with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
