The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow partial enforcement of its birthright citizenship restrictions while legal challenges continue.
In emergency filings on Thursday, the administration requested the justices to scale back lower court rulings in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington that have blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order issued early in his second term.
Currently, the order is suspended nationwide after three federal appeals courts, including one in Massachusetts on Tuesday, ruled against the administration’s request.
RELATED STORIES
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown Podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
The executive order seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born after February 19 if their parents are in the country illegally. It also prohibits federal agencies from issuing or accepting any state documents recognizing citizenship for such individuals.
READ ALSO: What’s next after U.S. appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to limit birthright citizenship?
More than two dozen states, along with advocacy groups and individuals, have sued, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
The Justice Department contends that individual judges lack the authority to impose nationwide rulings. Instead, the administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the order to take effect for everyone except the plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits, asserting that the states lack legal standing to challenge it.
As a secondary request, the administration seeks permission to publicly outline its enforcement strategy should the policy ultimately be upheld.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argues in her filing that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause “does not extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the United States.”
The emergency appeal does not directly challenge the order’s constitutionality. Instead, it raises concerns over the power of individual federal judges to issue broad nationwide injunctions—an issue previously criticized by five of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.
While the Court has not yet ruled on the matter, the administration made similar arguments during Trump’s first term, including in the legal battle over his travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld that policy but did not weigh in on the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions.
Harris noted an increase in such court orders, pointing out that 15 nationwide injunctions were issued against the administration’s actions in February alone—more than the total issued during the first three years of President Joe Biden’s term.
The rapid legal battles reflect Trump’s swift policy changes since returning to office, including firing thousands of federal workers, cutting tens of billions in foreign and domestic aid, rolling back transgender rights, and restricting birthright citizenship.
