Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to scale back nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts that have blocked enforcement of his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed three emergency requests on Thursday, urging the high court to restrict the scope of the lower court rulings to only those individuals directly involved in the lawsuits. The cases, originating in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, challenge the constitutionality of Trump’s immigration policy under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
“These cases raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Harris wrote. “But at this stage, the government comes to this court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the court should restrict the scope of multiple preliminary injunctions.”
Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Sparks Legal Battle
Trump signed the executive order on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, as part of his broader immigration crackdown. The order denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mothers were unlawfully present or on temporary visas, and their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The controversial move was immediately challenged by states, advocacy groups, and individuals who argue that it violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
Four federal judges—in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington state—issued rulings blocking the order’s enforcement nationwide. The administration appealed, seeking to limit the impact of those rulings, but federal appeals courts declined to narrow the injunctions.
Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Intervention
Harris argued in the Supreme Court filing that the nationwide nature of the injunctions unjustly prevents the executive branch from carrying out its policies while the litigation unfolds.
“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden administration,” Harris wrote. “This sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the executive branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions.”
She contended that the broad rulings could exacerbate the border crisis, as they provide “a nationwide incentive for illegal immigration: the prospect of American citizenship for the unlawful migrants’ children.”
Supreme Court’s History on Nationwide Injunctions
The issue of nationwide injunctions has been contentious in recent years, with both Republican and Democratic administrations challenging the practice when faced with opposition from district courts.
Justice Clarence Thomas previously raised concerns about such sweeping orders. In a 2018 concurring opinion related to Trump’s first-term travel ban, he questioned whether district courts have the authority to block policies nationwide and warned that if the trend continued, the Supreme Court would need to address the matter.
“If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality,” Thomas wrote at the time.
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will take up Trump’s emergency request or allow the lower court injunctions to remain in effect as the cases proceed.
What Comes Next?
If the Supreme Court grants Trump’s request, it could significantly limit the reach of the lower court rulings, allowing his birthright citizenship order to partially take effect while legal challenges continue. However, if the high court denies the request, the administration will have to argue its case through the standard appeals process, delaying any potential enforcement of the policy.
With immigration expected to be a defining issue of Trump’s second term, the outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications for citizenship rights, constitutional law, and executive authority over immigration policy.
