Sotomayor Blasts Court: 'No Right Is Safe Anymore'

United States Supreme Court. Photo by Kurt Kaiser under CC0 1.0.

If you thought Supreme Court drama was reserved for niche legal scholars and cable news soundbites, think again. On June 27, the final day of its 2025 term, the nation's highest court issued a ruling that could upend how American law protects your rights — and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wants you to know it.

The Birthright Battleground

At the center of the storm is Trump's executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless one parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Legal experts widely view the move as a challenge to the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has been interpreted for over 150 years to mean that nearly anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

Up until now, that order had been halted under a national injunction.

The Case That Could Change Everything

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court's conservative majority voted 6-3 to sharply curtail the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions — the very legal tool often used to stop executive orders from taking immediate effect while litigation plays out.

It didn't rule on the constitutionality of Donald Trump's controversial executive order to end birthright citizenship. But it did shift the legal landscape in a way that could help that order, and others like it, come to life sooner rather than later.

This decision makes it harder for lone judges to pause federal policies across the country, even when they appear to violate constitutional rights. Going forward, those policies can be enforced everywhere except in the jurisdictions directly involved in ongoing lawsuits.

Sotomayor Warns: 'No Right Is Safe'

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't just file a dissent — she read it aloud from the bench.

That rare move underscored her alarm.

Joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor decried the ruling as a dramatic rollback of judicial oversight. She warned that by weakening the courts' power to issue broad injunctions, the majority had effectively handed the executive branch a blank check.

"No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates," her dissent reads, according to the Guardian. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship."

Class Actions and Legal Whiplash

In response, civil rights groups and states are scrambling to find workarounds. ACLU of Maine and others have reportedly filed a class action lawsuit seeking to block the policy nationwide by other means, such as class certification, which could still offer broader protections if granted.

But until that happens, enforcement of the order may vary by geography, creating a legal patchwork where fundamental rights differ depending on where you live.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her own dissent, labeled the ruling an "existential threat to the rule of law," according to the Guardian, emphasizing that individuals must now sue in specific ways and places just to maintain rights the Constitution supposedly guarantees.

A Shift in the Balance of Power

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, framed the decision as a necessary check on judicial overreach, arguing that courts were never meant to issue such sweeping blocks on executive action. "The Judiciary does not have unbridled authority," she wrote, according to Reuters.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a "monumental victory" for presidential power, as reported by Reuters.

To critics, however, the decision marks a significant tilt in the balance of power away from the judiciary and toward the presidency — a move they say risks eroding civil liberties when courts cannot act swiftly and broadly against unconstitutional policies.

Why You Should Care

Regardless of one's views on President Trump's policies, the process for challenging executive actions is critically important. This ruling extends beyond immigration — it affects the ability of all citizens to seek recourse when presidential orders are contested.

As Justice Sotomayor put it, "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." as reported by The Guardian.

References:Class action lawsuit filed over Trump's birthright citizenship executive order | What is a universal injunction and how did the Supreme Court limit its use? | Liberal supreme court justices' dissents reveal concerns that the US faces a crisis | Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block presidential policies