A beaming President Trump addressed the press at the podium in the White House press briefing room, calling the decision “important and surprising.” and saying the administration is “very pleased.”

He called it a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.”

The court’s decision not only affects Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy measures, which have been temporarily thwarted by similar court orders.

Impact on Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to stop granting automatic citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil, at least for now. Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy task.

On Friday, the nation's highest court allowed Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship to take effect within a month, leaving room for lower courts to limit the impact on those with standing to sue.

Traditionally, states are in charge of processing birth certificates, and many do not record the parents' citizenship. Democratic state governments will be in no rush to do so, regardless of the Trump administration's wishes.

And Judge Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority of the justices, left the door open for states to argue that a broader block on Trump's action on birthright citizenship is necessary.

This sets up significant legal battles.

“From the states' perspective, their harm financial damages and the administrative burdens resulting from dependent benefit programs cannot be remedied without a blanket enjoining of the Executive Order,” Barrett wrote.

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

President Trump called the court’s decision Friday a “major victory.”

He added that the “birthright citizenship deception” has been “indirectly affected” and that the decision would prevent “scams in our immigration process.”

Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the United States will eliminate birthright citizenship in October during its next session.

Expanding Presidential Power

The court’s decision to limit the power of federal trial judges to issue injunctions at the national will have immediate and far-reaching consequences.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have frequently criticized what they consider ideological jurists in federal district courts, who have single-handedly blocked executive actions and even laws passed by Congress.

While the elimination of automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. is the centerpiece of this high-profile case, other actions taken by Trump in recent months have also been blocked by lower-ranking judges.

Since Trump's inauguration through April 29, the Congressional Research Service has counted 25 such cases.

After the court's decision on Friday, Trump told reporters, "We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been improperly enjoined."

Lower courts have blocked the president's cuts to foreign aid, diversity programs, and other government agencies; they have limited his ability to fire public employees, have suspended immigration measures and the changes issued by the White House for electoral processes.

With the Supreme Court's decision in this case, the government is in a much stronger position to ask the courts to allow it to push forward many of these initiatives.

During the Biden presidency, conservative judges blocked Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offer student loan forgiveness and change immigration rules.

The courts also blocked changes to the normalization of immigration status for some undocumented immigrants during Barack Obama's presidency and prevented more white-collar workers from qualifying for overtime pay.

In all of these types of cases, the courts will be able to intervene and stop presidential actions they find illegal or unconstitutional.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated, “The lower courts will act expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions conform to this standard and, more generally, to principles of fairness.”

But this will be sorted out later in the litigation process, on appeal, and in the Supreme Court.

Click here to read more stories from BBC News Mundo.

Subscribe here to our new newsletter to receive a selection of our best content of the week every Friday.

You can also follow us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook and our WhatsApp channel.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.