The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning former President Donald Trump’s emergency appeal to overturn nationwide injunctions that have halted his executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship.
This unusual May session positions the Court to deliver a ruling by summer on whether the former president can proceed with efforts to restrict U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil only if their parents are lawful permanent residents.
The case also touches on a broader legal debate: whether a single federal judge has the authority to block national implementation of presidential policies. Trump is challenging injunctions that have stopped various federal initiatives, including layoffs, budget reallocations, and changes to deportation procedures.
For over a hundred years, both the judiciary and the federal government have interpreted the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause as granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, affirms that anyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen of both the U.S. and the state in which they live.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer opened the hearing by arguing that allowing a single district judge to issue nationwide rulings places the government at an unfair disadvantage.
He asserted that the citizenship clause was originally intended to cover the children of formerly enslaved individuals—not undocumented immigrants, who, he said, did not exist as a legally recognized group when the amendment was ratified.
Sauer also argued that sweeping injunctions pressure judges to make urgent decisions with limited information, encourage plaintiffs to seek out favorable courts, and stifle the development of legal consensus on complex issues.