Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship can take effect during ongoing legal challenges. The case also tests the future of nationwide injunctions. Liberal justices pushed back, warning the order could create stateless children and patchwork enforcement.
Supreme Court Considers Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order: Quick Looks
- Trump’s birthright citizenship restriction faces Supreme Court scrutiny, with a decision expected by late June.
- The administration wants to enforce the order during litigation, challenging lower court nationwide injunctions.
- Liberal justices opposed lifting the injunctions, warning of unequal treatment and stateless children.
- The 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision guarantees birthright citizenship, a key precedent cited in the case.
- Justice Kagan criticized selective enforcement, saying those who can’t sue would be harmed.
- Justice Kavanaugh questioned enforcement logistics, including how hospitals and states would handle newborns.
- States argued citizenship could depend on geography, creating inconsistent legal standards.
- Government attorney D. John Sauer admitted no final enforcement plan exists yet.
- The Trump order gives agencies only 30 days to draft enforcement procedures.
- Nationwide injunctions have blocked over 40 Trump orders since his second term began.
Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
Deep Look
The Supreme Court is poised to decide whether President Donald Trump’s controversial restrictions on birthright citizenship can temporarily take effect while legal challenges work their way through the courts. On Thursday, justices engaged in more than two hours of intense questioning on whether lower courts acted properly in blocking the order nationwide—and what consequences might follow if those blocks are lifted.
At stake is not only the fate of Trump’s executive order, which denies U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented or temporary-status parents, but also the broader role of nationwide injunctions in checking executive power. The court’s ruling could fundamentally reshape how immigration law is enforced across the country during ongoing litigation.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, opened the session by noting that 40 nationwide injunctions have been issued against Trump’s policies since his second term began in January. The administration argues that these broad judicial blocks prevent the government from enforcing its laws and policies outside the narrow scope of each individual lawsuit.
But liberal justices showed strong skepticism toward allowing the executive order to proceed in the interim. Justice Elena Kagan noted that every lower court so far has found the order unconstitutional.
“Every court has ruled against you,” she told Sauer. Kagan also warned that lifting the injunction would harm those unable to afford legal recourse. “The ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the danger of creating a patchwork legal system, where a child could be considered a U.S. citizen in one state and denied citizenship in another. She warned that this could lead to children being effectively stateless, particularly if their parents fled persecution and cannot safely return to their countries of origin.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, Solicitor General of New Jersey and lead attorney for 22 states challenging the order, illustrated the real-world impact of inconsistent enforcement. He pointed out that a baby born in Camden, New Jersey would be a citizen, but if born across the Delaware River in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—one of the states not party to the lawsuit—they might not be.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how enforcement would work under Trump’s order.
“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do?” he asked. Sauer conceded that the administration has not finalized an implementation plan but suggested it may begin by rejecting birth documents that list incorrect citizenship designations.
Kavanaugh pressed further, skeptical of the administration’s readiness to implement the order within the 30-day window mandated by Trump’s directive.
“You think they can get it together in time?” he asked pointedly.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett explored whether certifying a class-action lawsuit could serve as a viable alternative to sweeping injunctions. Such a mechanism would allow plaintiffs to represent a broader group and still offer nationwide protection while potentially addressing concerns over judicial overreach. However, Sauer acknowledged that the administration might oppose such suits, possibly prolonging legal uncertainty.
While Thursday’s hearing focused on temporary measures during litigation, the underlying constitutional issue remains unresolved. The Trump administration’s executive order directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees U.S. citizenship to nearly all children born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The Trump team contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should exclude children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily in the U.S. However, legal precedent, including Wong Kim Ark, has long interpreted that clause to apply broadly, with exceptions only for children of foreign diplomats, occupying enemy forces, or certain Native American tribes.
The Trump administration has asked the court to act swiftly on its emergency request, but the justices did not indicate when a ruling would be issued. A decision is expected by the end of June.
If the court allows the executive order to take temporary effect, it could fundamentally alter birthright citizenship policies for the first time in more than a century. The ruling could also limit the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions—an increasingly powerful tool that has been used to freeze over 40 of Trump’s policies since the start of his second term.
The case is one of several high-stakes immigration battles currently before the Court. Others include efforts to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of migrants and deport alleged gang members under the historic Alien Enemies Act. With its ruling, the Supreme Court may define not just who is entitled to U.S. citizenship, but how far federal judges can go to protect those rights.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.