The United States Supreme Court recently deliberated on whether federal judges possess the authority to block President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship while the matter continues in the lower courts. The Trump administration has argued that it should be permitted to implement portions of the order. Despite extensive discussions, it remains uncertain if a majority of justices support removing nationwide injunctions, which prevent the government from enforcing policies across the country.
The discussions largely avoided addressing the constitutional legality of Trump’s order, focusing instead on procedural matters. While some justices questioned the efficacy of class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, others suggested that these cases are not suitable for deciding the issue, as Trump’s order appears clearly unconstitutional to them.
During his current term, Trump signed an order stating that children born in the U.S. to parents illegally or temporarily present would not receive citizenship. The order faced immediate legal challenges from states, rights groups, and individuals concerned about its implications. The 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all born or naturalized in the U.S., was historically intended to counteract the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans.
Several federal judges, including Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, have labeled the order “blatantly unconstitutional” and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The Trump administration approached the Supreme Court to allow partial enforcement of the order while it develops implementation guidance. They argue that universal injunctions are an overreach of judicial power and disrupt the normal legal processes.
The justices are set to review the government’s request, with discussions centered around the implications of removing universal injunctions. The Trump administration, represented by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, contends that the 14th Amendment’s original intent applied only to children of formerly enslaved individuals and that universal injunctions cause practical challenges, including forum shopping and inconsistent judgments.
Opposing the administration, representatives for the states and private plaintiffs argued that the executive order is unlawful and warned of severe consequences if implemented. They highlighted the logistical chaos that could arise if citizenship depended on state boundaries.
Some justices expressed skepticism about the government’s proposal to replace universal injunctions with class actions, noting the procedural complexities and timing issues class actions entail. Justices also questioned how the executive order could be enforced without infringing on established Supreme Court precedents.
While the court’s liberal justices have strongly opposed Trump’s order, no justice has supported the administration’s claim of its constitutionality. The timing of when the Supreme Court will formally address the birthright citizenship question remains uncertain, though a decision is anticipated by late June or early July.
