On Thursday, the Supreme Court Justices heard arguments in an important birthright citizenship case. The outcome could significantly affect the Trump Administration’s immigration policies and its efforts to broaden presidential authority.
The case revolves around an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. This order challenged the established interpretation of birthright citizenship by asserting it doesn’t apply to children born to parents who aren’t U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The arguments focused on the Administration’s attempts to overturn nationwide injunctions from lower courts. These injunctions have blocked the policy while legal challenges proceed.
Representing the Trump Administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions, which he termed “universal injunctions,” are unconstitutional. He contended that lower courts should only be able to prevent Trump’s order from affecting the individuals who filed lawsuits. Sauer stated that only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the executive order’s constitutionality for the entire nation.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor strongly opposed the Administration’s stance. She argued it was unreasonable for an executive order as broad as Trump’s on birthright citizenship to be enforced in some parts of the country but not others. She also questioned waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve such matters. Using the hypothetical of a president seizing all guns due to gun violence concerns, she challenged Sauer’s argument that the courts must wait until every claim is resolved before overturning such an order.
Several courts have ruled that the executive order violates the principle of birthright citizenship, as protected by the 14th Amendment, and contradicts over 120 years of legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in the 1898 ruling. Sotomayor noted that Trump’s order, in her view, violates four Supreme Court precedents.
Although Trump’s immigration policy is central to the case, the court may only rule on the power of federal courts to limit executive power through nationwide injunctions. This decision could have major consequences for Trump’s presidency, given his push to expand executive power and the courts’ efforts to define its limits.
Several Justices questioned the practicality of ending nationwide injunctions. Justice Elena Kagan presented a scenario where the government consistently loses cases in lower courts. She questioned why an Administration would appeal to the Supreme Court and risk an unfavorable ruling if nationwide injunctions were not a concern.
Conservative Justices offered some support to Sauer. Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the country “survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned instances where the Supreme Court acted swiftly on important cases, citing the TikTok case.
While the Court primarily addressed nationwide injunctions, they also discussed the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was intended for freed slaves, not immigrants.
Justice Sotomayor pointed out that without a nationwide injunction, Trump’s Executive Order could leave thousands of newborns “stateless,” lacking citizenship in the U.S. and potentially born to parents from countries requiring birth on their soil for citizenship. She emphasized that numerous lower courts have found the Order to violate “not only precedent, but the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.”