Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments in a high-stakes case involving former President Donald Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, while also weighing the broader question of whether federal judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.
The justices did not rule on the core constitutional issue of whether Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is lawful. Instead, they focused on whether lower court rulings that blocked the policy nationwide — not just for the plaintiffs involved — were legally justified. But several justices signaled concern about allowing the policy to take effect while litigation continues.
The case stems from Trump’s proposal to limit automatic U.S. citizenship to those born to at least one U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident — a radical shift from the long-standing interpretation that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, with few exceptions.
Legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and previous court rulings have interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause — “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” — as clearly establishing birthright citizenship, regardless of parents’ immigration status.
During more than two hours of oral arguments, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s request to narrow injunctions in this particular case, citing the practical challenges states would face if citizenship rules varied by region.
“Why wouldn’t they be entitled to an injunction of the scope of the one that has currently been entered?” Barrett asked, highlighting the chaotic legal landscape that could result without uniform rules on citizenship.
Justice Kavanaugh pressed the government’s attorney on how newborns would be treated differently depending on geography:
“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he asked. “You think they can get it together in time?”
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, arguing on behalf of 22 states that sued the administration, warned of a “patchwork system” where babies’ citizenship would effectively change as they crossed state lines.
The court’s liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—were even more forceful in their rejection of the policy’s legal footing.
“Let’s just assume you’re dead wrong,” Kagan told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration.
Sotomayor said the administration’s workaround proposal of using class action lawsuits instead of injunctions “makes no sense whatsoever.”
Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, expressed concern about judicial overreach but acknowledged the complexities of applying rulings from individual district courts across the nation.
“Sometimes [judges] are wrong,” Alito said. “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.”
So far, every lower court that has reviewed Trump’s birthright plan has blocked it, calling it unconstitutional. Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each issued nationwide injunctions to prevent enforcement while litigation is ongoing. The Trump administration responded by filing emergency applications at the Supreme Court.
Outside the court, activists gathered with signs defending birthright citizenship and decrying Trump’s immigration policies. One banner read, “Trump must go now.”
Trump has publicly defended the plan, writing on Truth Social:
“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens… laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!”
The court has not yet decided whether to directly take up the constitutional question — whether Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment is legally valid. But Thursday’s session suggested a path forward where the justices could address the injunction issue now while taking up the full citizenship case later.
Any future ruling on the constitutionality of the policy would have sweeping implications for millions of U.S.-born children of immigrants, for the balance of power between branches of government, and for how broadly federal judges can rule on executive actions.
What’s Next:
A decision on whether to limit or uphold the nationwide injunctions is expected by summer. If the court chooses to take up the full citizenship case, it could issue a ruling as early as the next term.
