A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they’re born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship.

The justices didn’t rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect.

That opens a potential path for Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma.

State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the U.S. unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others.

“What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. “Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?”

Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump’s restrictions can’t take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court.

Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump’s order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive.

Trump celebrated Friday’s ruling as a “monumental victory.” His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country.

Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They’re already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump’s policy while their lawsuits proceed.

“Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”

Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court.

“There’s lots of unanswered questions,” she said.

Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order.

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president’s anti-democratic agenda,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.”

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.