The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to limit the use of nationwide injunctions could split U.S. states in two.

People living in the 21 states and Washington, D.C. represented by Democratic attorneys general who have aggressively — and successfully — sued to block the Trump administration’s actions will continue to be shielded from Trump’s attempts to freeze federal funding, redefine citizenship and more. 

But it could become more difficult for Democratic Attorneys General to convince judges to extend relief to red states while their legal challenges play out in court. 

Most immediately, the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling calls into question how birthright citizenship is applied nationwide. 

The ruling did not address whether President Trump’s January executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. But by limiting the use of nationwide injunctions, it opens the door to a scenario in which the citizenship of babies born to immigrant parents depends partly on whether they are born in a state with an attorney general willing to contest Trump’s order in court.

Five Democratic Attorneys General stressed in a virtual press conference Friday that birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for the next 30 days under the Supreme Court ruling. They expressed confidence they can convince a lower court judge that a nationwide injunction is needed in this instance. 

“In order for states to receive the protections we need from the harms inflicted by this order, we need nationwide relief,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) said. “Because if you think about — very obviously — people born in states that are not part of our coalition might move into our state.”

“The federal government has not shown, in any way, how we could possibly administer a system of citizenship and the benefits that flow from it, without having one standard of citizenship under birthright citizenship in every state,” he added. 

The attorneys general said they did not expect the Supreme Court decision to affect other nationwide injunctions they have previously won, such as rulings that stop the Trump administration from freezing federal grants. 

“The court said very clearly that when states can show they need nationwide relief in order to remedy harms to those states, then nationwide relief is appropriate,” Platkin said. 

Trump hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a tremendous victory. Some Republican attorneys general joined him. 

“Democratically enacted laws cannot be put on hold by judges who think they are kings,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) said in a statement.

Trump in January issued an executive order that reinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that the United States will not recognize children born in the country as citizens if they are born to a mother who is not a legal permanent resident or citizen and a father who is not a legal permanent resident or citizen. 

Lower courts have repeatedly ruled that the order violates the U.S. Constitution.

At a Denver event in April, Democratic attorneys general told reporters they had mixed feelings about the nationwide injunctions they have won, because the rulings shield red states from the consequences of Trump’s presidency.

“I think we all feel conflicted about that,” said Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez (D).

Lopez noted that Democratic attorneys general in February successfully won a court ruling that blocked cuts to National Institutes of Health grants awarded to recipients in their states.

“I want to be clear that I also feel a little satisfaction that we’re winning that fight, and the red states that are not joining us are going to feel the consequences of the election,” she said.