AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major decision# today, one that will limit federal judges' powe.. to block the president's agenda nationwide.# The decision, which resulted from a case## related to an executive order on birthright# citizenship, rules that individual judges## cannot grant nationwide injunctions to block# any policies coming from the White House.

The court ruled 6-3 along partisan lines.

GEOFF BENNETT: In her opinion, Justice Amy# Coney Barrett wrote: "No one disputes that## the executive has a duty to follow the law, but# the judiciary does not have unbridled authority## to enforce this obligation.

In fact, sometimes# the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so."

The justices did not rule on the merits of the# Trump administration's restrictions on birthright## citizenship, but the president welcomed# the ruling during a press briefing today.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:# Thanks to this decision, we can now properly## file to proceed with these numerous policies# and those that have been wrongly enjoined## on a nationwide basis, including birthright# citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding,## suspending refugee resettlement, freezing# unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers## from paying for transgender surgeries and# numerous other priorities of the American people.

GEOFF BENNETT: The justices also# ruled on four other cases today,## one upholding a key provision of the Affordable# Care Act, another upholding a Texas law requiring## age verification for pornography sites,# one related to Internet and phone service## to rural and low income-communities, and a# case involving LGBTQ-themed books in schools.

For more, we're joined now by our Supreme Court# analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe,## and Amanda Frost, professor of immigration and# citizenship law at the University of Virginia.

Thank you both for being here.

AMANDA FROST, University of# Virginia School of Law.. AMY HOWE: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: S.. on nationwide injunctions, walk us# through what that means in practice.

AMY HOWE: Yes, so it's a huge win for the Trump# administration on the issue of these nationwide## injunctions, the idea that you can't go to one# federal court and, often the plaintiffs -- and## this was something that was a thorn in the# side for both the Trump administration,## the Biden administration before that, and# then the Trump administration before that.

You could go to one particular district and# find a federal judge that you thought might## be a friendly one and block a policy or a# law throughout the entire country.

And so## the Supreme Court today said that federal# judges don't have that kind of power.

As for the issue of birthright citizenship, which# was the context in which this case came to the## court, the Supreme Court didn't address whether# or not the president's executive order, which he## signed shortly after he was inaugurated, ending# birthright citizenship was itself constitutional.

And that battle is going to go on.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amanda, on# the matter of these injunctions,## some might assume that class action# lawsuits would solve the issue here,## but that risks overwhelming the lower# courts with potentially thousands of## identical lawsuits that, to Amy's point,# could result in a patchwork of resolutions.

And this is also coming at a time# when the Trump administration has## cracked down on law firms that take# on issues it sees as opposing the## Trump agenda.

So there might not# be a coordinated legal challenge.

AMANDA FROST: Yes.

So there's a couple of issues,# a couple of consequences of this decision.

One is, of course, that for individuals to get# relief, they now all have to sue as individuals,## to the degree that they have the resources and# the wherewithal to get lawyers and do that.

And## that, of course, will add to the already# overburdened lower federal court dockets.

Another solution would be potentially# class actions.

And, of course,## we're not just talking about the birthright# citizenship executive order.

We're talking## about the fact that the court ended universal# injunctions across the board in all of the## cases under this administration, which has# had a record number of universal injunctions## stopping its policies from going# into effect and any future president.

So, class actions are a potential mechanism# by which groups of individuals can band## together and get one judge to issue# universal relief.

But not every case## is eligible for classified relief.

And the# Supreme Court knows that well because it## issued the decisions that have cut# back and restricted class actions.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, as we said, this# ruling fell along ideological lines.

And,## in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:## "With the stroke of a pen, the president has# made a solemn mockery of our Constitution."

It continues: "Rather than stand# firm, the court gives way."

A number of lower federal courts, six, I believe,## said that President Trump's executive order on# birthright citizenship was not constitutional.## So lower courts ruled on the merits.

Why# didn't the Supreme Court do the same?

AMY HOWE: It didn't do the same because the# Trump administration didn't ask the justices## to block the orders in their entirety.# And Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent,## said that the reason that the federal# government didn't come to the Supreme## Court asking the justices to block the order in# their entirety is because, to do that, it would## have to show that the president's executive# order, she said, was likely constitutional.

And, as she said, six judges, six courts had# found that the order was unconstitutional.## And so this was gamesmanship,# was what Justice Sotomayor said,## by the federal government coming on this# narrow ground, just on the issue of universal## injunctions.

And she sort of chastised# the majority for playing along with it.

And she said essentially that the Supreme# Court shouldn't endorse this idea that,## somewhat along the lines of what Amanda# just said, when you have these policies## that she believes are plainly unlawful, you# shouldn't have to wait until the issue sort## of winds its way all the way through the# courts before you can get relief from it.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amanda, as Amy mentioned, this# ruling comes after years of frustration from## both presidents with these nationwide injunctions.

The Biden administration asked the Supreme# Court to take up the propriety of nationwide## injunctions.

The court said no.

And now,# five months into the Trump administration,## the court weighs in.

Does this ruling reflect# the interests of the executive more broadly,## no matter who was president,# or is this another case of this## conservative-leaning court again empowering# the executive authority of Donald Trump?

AMANDA FROST: Yes, so this ruling applies,## of course, to any -- to Donald Trump's# presidency and any future president.

And it empowers the executive branch.

And# so every president, whether it was Obama,## Biden, or Trump, didn't like these universal# injunctions because they stymied executive branch## policies.

So this decision by the Supreme# Court expands the power of the executive.

I will say, though, that I think# it is particularly interesting## they issued this ruling during Trump's# presidency, not during Biden or Obama's,## when these issues came up too.# And also, it has to be said,## President Trump has issued more executive orders,# engaged in more unilateral rewriting of law than## his predecessors.

So he would benefit from the# absence of universal injunctions more than them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, our team spoke to# a number of immigration advocacy groups,## including the plaintiffs in this case,## a group called CASA.

And they really# hammered the decision today.

Take a.. GEORGE ESCOBAR, CASA: Well, I would say, because# there's -- we have allowed a significant part of## our society to normalize hate, to normalize an# outright strategy to dehumanize our immigrant## community, as evidenced by today's ruling, to# normalize the stripping of constitutional rights.

These are scary times, but we are not powerless.

GEOFF BENNETT: So there is# this unresolved question here,## Amanda.

I mean, could we end up in a# situation where a child is recognized## as a citizen in New Jersey,# let's say, but not in Alabama?

I mean, this creates a potential for# patchwork citizenship.

And, of course,## Americans, all of us inhabiting the# United States are free to move from## one state to the other.

There's no# borders.

There's no passports.

And## now you're a citizen if you're born in# one state or not the other potentially.

It would inspire potentially pregnant women# to leave one state to give birth in another.## I think this would be very chaotic.# I will note that, at oral argument,## Justice Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General Sauer,# how would this be implemented?

What is the plan?## And Solicitor General Sauer said, we will have# to figure that out.

They have 30 days to do so.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, the# justices, as you well know,## they also ruled on four other# cases today, including a major## case out of suburban Maryland involving# storybooks that feature LGBTQ characters.

The court ruled in favor of a group of# parents who argued those books violated## their religious beliefs.

And our team# spoke with Rosalind Hansen.

She's a## Maryland parent who opposed the books and# she's also with the group Moms for Liberty.

ROSALIND HANSON, Moms for Liberty: As a parent,# first and foremost, I am a Catholic.

And so our## beliefs are fundamental and rooted in our# Bible and our Catholic upbringing.

And so I## want to make sure that, when I'm sending my son to# school, that our religious liberty is protected.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what impact does this ruling# in particular have on schools across the country?

AMY HOWE: Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted# that this was going to lead to chaos,## in the sense that you could have parents pulling# their children out of instruction based on their## religious beliefs.

Obviously, there's a# variety of religious beliefs.

And then## parents may want to pull their children# out of instruction for other reasons.

Her other criticism of the majority's# opinion was that it really sort of has## the potential to undermine what she called the# core premise of public education more broadly,## the idea that children who go to public# schools all receive sort of the same education,## the same sort of societal values, and that if# everyone who goes to public school is not in## fact receiving the same education, it will# undermine that public education experience.

The other side, there are states who already# do these opt-outs that the Montgomery County## parents in this case were seeking.

And that was in# fact one of the reasons that the majority in this## case pointed to when it was evaluating whether# or not this opt-out policy or the failure to## allow the parents to opt their children out# of instruction was likely constitutional.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amy Howe, Amanda Frost, thank# you both for being here.

We appreciate it.

AMANDA FROST: Thank you.

AMY HOWE: Thank you.