WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as thejustices actedin a legal fight over President Donald Trump`s bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope oftheir orders.

However, the court`s 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump`s policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy`s legality.

The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctionsissued byfederaljudgesin Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

With the court`s conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump`s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday`s ruling.

`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,` Barrett wrote.

Justice sonia sotomayor,ina dissent joined by the court`s other two liberal members, wrote, `The majority ignores entirely whether the President`s executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.

Yet the order`s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority`s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case.` Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. `GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court,` Trump wrote on Truth Social.

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an execu-tive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of childrenborn in the United States who donothave atleast one parent who is an American citizen orlawful permanent resident, also called a `green card` holder.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump`s directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenge d it.

`Obviously unconstitutional` In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump`s executive order is obviously unconstitutional.

So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department `asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.` `The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,Sotomayor wrote. `Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.

`Illegal and cruel` The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families.

`The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,` said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants` Rights Project.

`The court`s decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order.`-Reuters