The U.S. Supreme Court has begun deliberating a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship laws.
According to the Associated Press, the justices appeared inclined on Thursday to uphold a freeze on Trump’s attempts to alter birthright citizenship, while simultaneously exploring whether limits should be placed on broad, nationwide court injunctions.
While the potential outcome remains uncertain, most justices seemed concerned about the implications of temporarily allowing the administration to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents.
RELATED STORIES
Arguments focused on the Trump administration’s emergency request to overturn lower court rulings that have prevented implementation of the order across the country.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court to hear Trump birthright citizenship case in May, keeps order on hold
Nationwide injunctions have been a recurring obstacle for Trump’s broader policy shifts and a growing point of contention for the White House. Since Trump’s second term began in January, judges have issued 40 such injunctions, Solicitor General Dean John Sauer noted during the hearing, which stretched over two hours.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
The executive order in question, signed by Trump on his first day of the new term, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to those present illegally or temporarily, a move directly challenging an 1898 Supreme Court decision affirming the 14th Amendment’s birthright guarantee, with exceptions not relevant here.
Lawsuits filed by states, immigration advocates, and civil rights groups led lower courts to suspend enforcement of the order. The current legal debate centers on the rules that govern the order’s status while the legal fight unfolds.
The Court’s liberal bloc backed those rulings, asserting that Trump’s proposal undermines a century-old consensus. Justice Elena Kagan said, “Birthright citizenship is an odd case to use to scale back nationwide injunctions. Every court has ruled against you.” She pointed out that, even if the government wins, people who don’t sue could face harmful consequences. “All of those individuals are going to win. And the ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the administration’s strategy as “catch me if you can,” suggesting it forces individuals to take legal action just to prevent their rights from being violated.
Meanwhile, conservative justices appeared more interested in the logistical fallout of lifting nationwide orders than in the core citizenship issue itself. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer for practical explanations: “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” Sauer responded that procedures may not immediately change, but federal authorities might begin rejecting documents marked with “the wrong designation of citizenship.” Kavanaugh remained skeptical, noting, “You think they can get it together in time?” with just 30 days to develop a policy.
Both the Trump and previous Biden administrations have taken issue with expansive court rulings. Echoing that sentiment, Justice Samuel Alito criticized judicial overreach, saying some judges suffer from an “occupational disease which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’”
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the chaos that could result if lower court rulings were narrowed. She warned that children could end up “stateless” — denied citizenship both in the U.S. and in the countries their parents fled.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing 22 states, raised similar concerns. He argued that citizenship might “turn on and off” depending on geography — for instance, a child born in Camden, New Jersey, might be recognized as a citizen, while one born just across the river in Philadelphia might not. Notably, Pennsylvania isn’t part of the lawsuit.
Some justices floated the idea of replacing broad injunctions with class action certification. Such a case, representing a larger affected group, could be fast-tracked and have nationwide reach. However, when questioned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sauer acknowledged the administration might resist or delay such a case.
It’s rare for the Court to take up emergency appeals without addressing the core issue directly. Yet, the Trump administration specifically avoided asking the Court to rule on the broader legality of the order at this time.
Should the justices side with the administration on the matter of injunctions, it’s unclear how long inconsistent rules might govern the citizenship status of children born within the U.S.
A final decision is expected before the Court’s term ends in June.
