The U.S. Supreme Court is at the center of a legal storm that could reshape both birthright citizenship and how lower courts wield their power. On Thursday, the justices heard high-stakes arguments over President Donald Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants, an order currently blocked by lower courts.
But the legal debate wasn’t just about who qualifies for U.S. citizenship. At the heart of the hearing was another pressing issue: whether courts should continue issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions that halt federal policies across the country, even before a final ruling is made.
Since the start of Trump’s second term in January, courts have issued 40 such nationwide injunctions, according to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. These orders have been a major roadblock to the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul immigration policy and a growing source of frustration for the president and his allies.
The Supreme Court appeared likely to keep the citizenship order on hold for now. However, several justices expressed interest in potentially curbing the use of nationwide injunctions moving forward, raising questions about whether individual lawsuits should carry national consequences.
Liberal justices, including Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, pushed back hard against the government’s arguments. Kagan pointed out that every court so far has ruled against the administration, and narrowing the injunctions would create an unfair outcome. “The ones who can’t afford to go to court—they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said. Jackson called the administration’s strategy a “catch me if you can” approach that forces every impacted person to sue individually just to defend their rights.
The executive order in question challenges a 125-year-old Supreme Court precedent from 1898 that upheld the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised practical concerns about enforcement. “What do hospitals do with a newborn?” he asked. Sauer admitted the policy details were still being figured out, despite the administration having only 30 days to implement the order. Kavanaugh wasn’t convinced. “You think they can get it together in time?”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and others warned of a “patchwork” effect if the injunctions are lifted. Children born on different sides of a state line, say Camden, New Jersey versus Philadelphia, Pennsylvania could have different citizenship statuses. Some kids might even end up stateless, with neither the U.S. nor their parents’ country granting them legal nationality.
A possible compromise? The Court floated the idea of using class action certification instead of nationwide injunctions. This would allow lawsuits to cover large groups of people without extending across the entire country. But even that option drew skepticism, as Sauer admitted the Trump administration might oppose or slow down such efforts.
The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June. Whatever the outcome, the ruling will shape not only who is recognized as a U.S. citizen but also how far judges can go in halting federal policies nationwide.