The Supreme Court on Thursday maintained a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, while agreeing to hear arguments on the matter in May.
Trump’s directive, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who entered the country illegally, has been blocked by three federal district courts. Appeals courts have upheld those decisions, declining to lift the injunctions.
In response, the Republican administration had petitioned the high court to allow the policy to take partial effect, either in regions outside the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions or broadly across the country while litigation proceeds. That question is expected to dominate the Supreme Court hearing scheduled for May 15.
RELATED STORIES
Under current interpretation of the Constitution, birthright citizenship grants U.S. citizenship to nearly anyone born on American soil, including children born to undocumented immigrants. This right is rooted in the 14th Amendment, ratified shortly after the Civil War.
Trump and his allies have pushed for stricter standards for acquiring U.S. citizenship, describing it in the executive order as “a priceless and profound gift.” The administration contends that children born to noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.—a phrase found in the 14th Amendment and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
Trump expressed optimism about the court’s involvement, saying he is “so happy” the justices will weigh in.
“I think the case has been so misunderstood,” he told reporters from the Oval Office.
He emphasized that the 14th Amendment was enacted in the post-Civil War era, adding, “It is all about slavery.”
“If you look at it that way, we would win that case,” Trump said.
However, immigrant advocates, civil rights organizations, and multiple states that have filed lawsuits argue that the executive order undermines a constitutional principle that has been consistently upheld for over 150 years.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s order, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, who is leading one of the challenges, stated that birthright citizenship “cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man.”
To date, judges have consistently ruled against the administration’s interpretation.
The Justice Department maintains that individual judges lack the authority to impose nationwide injunctions and instead argues that any ruling should be narrowly applied to the plaintiffs involved in each case. At the very least, the administration says the order should be blocked only in the 22 states that are party to the lawsuits. New Hampshire is covered by a separate injunction not at issue in this case.
READ ALSO: What’s next after U.S. appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship?
As an alternative measure, the administration has asked the court for permission “at a minimum” to announce how it intends to enforce the policy if it is ultimately upheld.
Although the current appeal technically centers on the reach of the injunctions rather than the legality of the policy itself, legal analysts say the justices will likely confront the broader constitutional question during the proceedings.
Should the Court side with the administration, it could trigger a fragmented legal landscape in which the birthright of a child depends on the state in which they are born.
Several justices have previously expressed skepticism about nationwide or universal injunctions, though the Court has yet to definitively rule on their constitutionality.
The administration raised similar arguments during Trump’s first term, notably in the Supreme Court case over the travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries. Though the Court upheld that policy, it did not address the injunction issue.
In court filings, the Justice Department has argued that expansive judicial blocks “thwart the Executive Branch’s crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness.”
The Trump administration is currently facing more than 150 lawsuits related to its aggressive push to remake the federal government. Judges have issued dozens of rulings that have stalled or blocked key initiatives on multiple fronts.
