In a rare and closely watched May oral argument session, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided Thursday over whether to restrict judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions — a powerful legal tool that has repeatedly stymied former President Donald Trump's policies, including his controversial attempt to narrow birthright citizenship.
During the two-and-a-half-hour hearing, several conservative justices voiced concern that lower court judges have overreached by blocking federal policies across the entire country in cases brought by individual plaintiffs. However, even as the justices weighed reining in such injunctions, none appeared ready to defend the constitutional validity of Trump’s executive order that underlies the case.
The order, issued on Trump's first day in office during his second term, seeks to limit automatic U.S. citizenship only to babies born on American soil with at least one parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Critics say the move directly contradicts over a century of legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“We Survived Without Universal Injunctions”
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has long questioned nationwide injunctions, pointedly observed that “we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.” His remarks echoed a broader skepticism among the Court's conservative bloc that such sweeping remedies may violate the principle of judicial restraint.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that class-action lawsuits could serve as an alternative, allowing affected individuals to join forces rather than relying on broad court orders. “I’m sure they’re being prepared now,” Kavanaugh said, in a comment that drew light laughter in the courtroom.
Still, no justice — conservative or liberal — mounted a defense of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy itself, signaling deep constitutional doubts about the executive order.
A Constitutional Collision
The liberal justices, particularly Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were direct in their critique of the order’s legality.
“This order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Sotomayor asserted, referencing past decisions upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Kagan warned that without nationwide relief, an unconstitutional order could remain partially in effect for years, harming individuals in jurisdictions where court protection is absent.
“This case is very different from a lot of our nationwide injunction cases,” Kagan said, noting the high constitutional stakes involved in the citizenship dispute.
High Stakes for Executive Power
The outcome of the case could significantly affect the federal judiciary’s role in checking executive power. During Trump's first term and the early months of his second, federal judges issued nationwide injunctions blocking his efforts to limit asylum, roll back environmental regulations, and prevent transgender Americans from serving in the military.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that the government is not seeking to abolish nationwide injunctions outright but wants to limit their use. He pointed out that three judges in different jurisdictions — Seattle, Boston, and Greenbelt, Maryland — have each blocked the birthright citizenship order in its entirety.
A favorable ruling for the administration would allow it to enforce the policy in jurisdictions not covered by those orders, while still barring its application in areas like San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and 22 Democratic-led states.
Roberts Seeks a Middle Path?
Chief Justice John Roberts, often a swing vote in closely divided cases, seemed to probe whether there was a procedural workaround. “Is there any reason in this particular litigation that we would be unable to act expeditiously?” he asked.
“Absolutely not, Mr. Chief Justice,” Sauer replied, suggesting that swift judicial review could reduce the need for sweeping injunctions.
Trump Weighs In From Abroad
Adding a political dimension to the legal showdown, Trump posted a fiery statement on Truth Social from a Middle East trip, saying: “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens... all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!”
His remarks underscore how central immigration remains to his political platform — and how much he has relied on executive action to advance it.
Unusual Timing, Unusual Stakes
Thursday’s session was exceptional not just for its high-profile subject, but also for its timing. The Supreme Court typically does not hold oral arguments after April and rarely schedules hearings for emergency applications. That the justices convened publicly at all for this case signals its national importance.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
