The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for Donald Trump to carry out his executive orders with fewer barriers from lower courts, in a landmark decision that strengthens the powers of the presidency and gives Trump a major legal win as he seeks re-election.

The ruling allows Trump’s controversial plan to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to take effect, while also curbing the ability of district judges to issue nationwide blocks against executive directives.

Appearing before reporters at the White House, Trump celebrated the outcome, describing it as a “big, amazing decision” and a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling gives Trump’s administration room to enforce its policy on birthright citizenship beginning next month, though the final legal word is far from settled.

In her written opinion for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said lower courts can still review whether some individuals may be shielded from the policy’s impact.

“As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order,” Barrett wrote.

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments.”

The decision puts responsibility on individual states, many of which—especially those run by Democrats—have not been documenting parental citizenship on birth certificates and are likely to resist the enforcement of the new policy.

Trump, meanwhile, said the court’s decision was a “giant win” and took a direct swipe at birthright citizenship, calling it a “hoax” that had now been “indirectly, hit hard.” He also claimed the move would curb the “scamming of our immigration process.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi added that the Supreme Court is set to decide in October whether the US will officially end birthright citizenship.

Until then, the administration is expected to begin the process of enforcing the executive order.

Beyond immigration, the court’s ruling has wider implications. It limits the reach of federal district courts to block presidential actions nationwide—a tool often used during both Republican and Democratic administrations to delay executive measures.

Since Trump took office, lower courts have blocked at least 25 executive orders, according to the Congressional Research Service.

These included actions related to foreign aid cuts, diversity initiatives, immigration changes, and election procedures.

Following the ruling, Trump said, “We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined.”

This shift in judicial interpretation allows presidents, both current and future, more flexibility to act on their agendas without immediate suspension by lower court rulings.

However, those rulings can still be challenged in higher courts later in the judicial process.

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must still ensure that injunctions comply with “principles of equity,” stating, “The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule.”

The ruling is expected to reshape how executive power is contested in court and gives the presidency broader authority to implement policies without early-stage legal interference.