The Trump administration will apparently not ask the Supreme Courtroom to rethink its June 30 ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s govt order ending birthright citizenship – the assure of U.S. citizenship to just about everybody born on this nation. Though Trump had indicated earlier this month that he meant to file a petition for rehearing within the case, Trump v. Barbara, the deadline for doing so – July 27 – has now handed, and no such temporary seems on the court docket’s electronic docket for the case. We are going to replace this story if that adjustments for any purpose.
Trump issued the order on Jan. 20, 2025, shortly after his second inauguration. Authorized challenges to the order adopted instantly, and federal judges across the nation agreed with the challengers – states, immigrants’ rights teams, and people – that the order violated the Structure. When the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court final 12 months, it requested the justices to weigh in on a unique query: whether or not federal courts have the facility to problem “common” or “nationwide” injunctions, orders that bar the federal government from imposing a legislation or coverage anyplace in america. By a vote of 6-3 on June 27, 2025, the court ruled that they don’t.
The challenges to Trump’s order then continued within the decrease courts, and on Dec. 5, 2025, the justices agreed to overview a ruling by a federal decide in New Hampshire striking down the order. On the ultimate day earlier than the court docket’s summer time recess, the justices upheld the decrease court docket’s ruling, with a majority figuring out that Trump’s order was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for almost all, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. He held that Trump’s order is inconsistent with the 14th Modification’s citizenship clause, which offers that “[a]ll individuals born or naturalized in america, and topic to the jurisdiction thereof, are residents of america and of the State whereby they reside.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed together with his 5 colleagues that the order couldn’t stand, however for a unique purpose. He believed that the order violated a federal law containing language that’s practically similar to that of the citizenship clause.
Three justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – dissented and would have allowed Trump’s order to enter impact.
On July 8, Trump indicated in a social media put up that he deliberate to ask the Supreme Courtroom “for a Rehearing … IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice,” Trump continued, “will destroy America in the event that they don’t change their completely insane resolution.”
Underneath the Supreme Court’s rules, a petition for rehearing would have been due 25 days after the court docket’s resolution. As a result of that date fell on a weekend – Saturday, July 25 – the due date grew to become the next weekday: Monday, July 27. (As of this morning, no such petition has been electronically docketed.)
A petition for rehearing would have confronted lengthy odds. The court docket’s rules present that such a petition will solely be granted if it garners votes from “a majority of the Courtroom, on the occasion of a Justice who concurred within the judgment or resolution.” On this case, that might have meant that Trump’s petition would have wanted 5 votes, at the least one among which (and, as a sensible matter, two) must come from one of many justices who voted to strike down Trump’s order: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, or Jackson (all of whom joined Roberts’ opinion for almost all) or Kavanaugh (who agreed with the end result that almost all reached however not the reasoning).
Historical past additionally means that Trump’s possibilities would have been slim. As law professor Stephen Vladeck noted, the Supreme Courtroom has not agreed to rethink its ruling in an argued case since 1965, when it modified its judgment “to allow additional proceedings within the decrease courts on points the Courtroom hadn’t resolved.” It has been even longer than that – going to again to 1956 – because the court docket granted rehearing and reversed its earlier decision on the deserves.