The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a mixed message Thursday during a high-stakes hearing on birthright citizenship and the use of nationwide injunctions, offering little support for President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, but showing interest in limiting how lower courts can block federal policies.
Trump’s 2023 order sought to revoke automatic U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants, a move widely criticized as unconstitutional. During more than two hours of oral arguments, none of the justices defended the order’s legality, and several openly questioned its constitutionality. But the real action in the courtroom focused less on the merits of the order and more on how federal courts can respond to sweeping executive actions.
What Is at Stake?
Three federal district judges had previously blocked the birthright order nationwide, preventing it from being enforced anywhere in the U.S. That type of broad ruling, called a nationwide injunction, has become increasingly common in recent years, particularly in cases challenging Trump-era immigration policies.
Conservative justices, including Justice Samuel Alito, suggested that such broad injunctions give too much power to individual district judges.
“The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges … and all Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want,’” Alito said.
Instead, several justices indicated that when broader remedies are needed, cases should be brought as class-action lawsuits, which go through additional legal vetting and require clear definitions about who is included in the ruling.
Liberals Push Back: “Catch Me If You Can” Justice?
On the other side, the Court’s liberal wing, particularly Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that eliminating nationwide injunctions could have dangerous consequences. Without them, illegal government actions might only be blocked in specific regions or for specific plaintiffs, leaving others exposed to the same harm until they individually sue.
“Your argument seems to turn our justice system … into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime,” Jackson told Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer. “Everybody would have to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit for the government to stop violating rights. That’s not consistent with the rule of law.”
Legal Experts Expect Mixed Outcome
Most legal analysts believe the Supreme Court will likely strike down Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, which has no clear constitutional support and runs contrary to the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. That clause, ratified in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.”
Trump’s legal team has argued that the clause should only apply to individuals “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., an interpretation widely dismissed by constitutional scholars.
But the Court’s conservative majority appears more interested in setting limits on judicial remedies than resolving the core citizenship question. If the justices restrict the use of nationwide injunctions, it could significantly weaken the power of lower courts to block federal policies across the board.
What Happens Next?
A final ruling is expected by late June or early July 2025. If the Court does issue a decision limiting nationwide injunctions, it would reshape the way lawsuits against federal policies are handled, requiring more class actions, creating regional disparities in enforcement, and possibly slowing down challenges to future executive orders.
For now, the birthright citizenship order remains blocked, and the broader principle, that birth on U.S. soil grants citizenship, still stands. But the mechanics of how courts protect that right may be about to change.
Leo Cruz brings sharp insights into the world of politics, offering balanced reporting and analysis on the latest policies, elections, and global political events. With years of experience covering campaigns and interviewing world leaders, Leo ensures readers are always informed and engaged.
