The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday took up a major case on whether federal judges can block laws across the entire country, focusing on an order from President Donald Trump that would limit birthright citizenship.
At the center of the debate is whether federal judges have the constitutional authority to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — legal tools that have been used to freeze dozens of Trump-era policies in recent years.
The case marks the first Trump immigration order to be argued before the justices since his return to office, and its outcome could affect thousands of newborns annually. According to the plaintiffs, more than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year if the policy takes effect.
President Trump’s order, signed on January 20, instructs federal agencies not to grant automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The administration argues that the 14th Amendment was never meant to extend citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders.
Three lower court judges — in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts — blocked the policy with nationwide injunctions, prompting the Trump administration to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the widespread use of such injunctions a “pathology” that undermines the constitutional limits of judicial power.
During more than two hours of oral arguments, the justices wrestled with both the procedural issue of injunctions and the underlying constitutional questions surrounding the 14th Amendment.
Several liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, expressed concern that without broad injunctions, thousands of affected families would be forced into long, expensive legal battles to obtain citizenship documents for their U.S.-born children.
“If one thinks that it’s quite clear the executive order is illegal,” Justice Kagan asked, “how does one get to that result without a nationwide injunction?”
Kagan added that, absent a broader block, the case could take years to reach the Supreme Court again, leaving thousands in legal limbo.
Justice Sotomayor was even more direct, stating that Trump’s order likely violated multiple Supreme Court precedents on citizenship. She compared the order to a hypothetical case of a president unilaterally revoking Second Amendment rights. “Wouldn’t we immediately stop that?” she asked.
Sauer defended the administration’s approach, arguing that any harms could be addressed through the normal appeals process or class action suits, without judges issuing universal orders. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito showed interest in this argument, questioning the historical precedent and the potential for judicial overreach.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a practical question: “Are you really going to say there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Her concern was echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who asked what hospitals and state agencies would do “the day after” the directive took effect.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing New Jersey and the 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, warned that a patchwork approach to citizenship enforcement could cripple state systems that rely on consistent documentation, such as Social Security and Medicaid. He also invoked the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long been interpreted to guarantee birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens born on U.S. soil.
The administration disputes that reading of the case, saying it applied only to children of parents who were permanent U.S. residents — not undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back strongly against Sauer’s view, warning that his interpretation would force individuals harmed by the policy to “hire a lawyer” and “play catch-me-if-you-can with the government,” which she said defied the rule of law.
The justices did not indicate a clear consensus on whether they would lift the nationwide injunctions. Some seemed inclined to limit lower courts’ ability to issue broad rulings, while others worried that doing so would delay justice for those directly affected.
Trump’s legal team has asked the Court to scale back the injunctions to cover only the plaintiffs and the 22 states involved in the lawsuit — potentially allowing the order to take effect in the remaining 28 states. A final ruling could have major implications for executive power, immigration law, and the future of the 14th Amendment.