This summary was featured in Documented’s Early Arrival newsletter. You can subscribe to receive it in your inbox three times per week here.
A Supreme Court decision is expected by late June or early July following oral arguments last Thursday in a court case against Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship for certain people born in the U.S.
That decision would bring to a close an argument concerning a 127-year-old legal precedent on birthright citizenship in the U.S. — and the question regarding the power of federal judges to block presidential policies nationwide.
Demonstrations of about 500 people, chanting “immigrants are welcome here” were held outside of the Supreme Court during the Thursday hearing.
At the center of the case is an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office in January, declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are not entitled to automatic citizenship. That directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which courts have consistently interpreted since 1898 as guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ status in the U.S.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s argument on Thursday, three federal judges blocked the order through universal injunctions, effectively halting its enforcement across the country. The Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to eliminate that judicial tool altogether, arguing that no single judge should have the power to issue nationwide rulings.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the Trump administration, saying that the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution regarding birthright citizenship is incorrect. “This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves — not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” he told the justices.
In response, Justice Sonia Sotomayor painted a scenario saying, were a president to decide to seize all guns in the U.S., would the courts “have to sit back and wait until every named plaintiff gets or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that without nationwide injunctions, the legal system would become a “catch me if you can” regime, forcing individuals to sue the government one by one.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned how the country could maintain a uniform definition of citizenship if presidents could unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution. Addressing Sauer, she said “How do we get … a single rule of citizenship that we’ve historically applied, rather than the rule that the EO [Trump’s executive order] would have us do?”
There were no clear decisions during the hearing, with the justices, both conservative and liberal, raising questions that were not fully answered. Liberal justices appeared to side with prior rulings of lower courts, saying there has been a long-understood interpretation of birthright citizenship in the U.S. Conservative justices wanted to know exactly how an end to birthright citizenship would play out practically.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed the administration on the logistics of implementing Trump’s policies: “What do hospitals do with a newborn?” To which Sauer responded that “Federal officials will have to figure that out.”
Sauer also proposed class actions as an alternative to individual lawsuits, but New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum warned it would cause “unprecedented chaos on the ground.” Justice Samuel Alito also appeared unconvinced of Sauer’s argument, saying that if the alternative to universal injunctions — class actions — creates just as much practical chaos, then why try to get rid of them? “So the answer is that the practical problem would not be solved,” Alito said, and if so, “what is the point of this argument about universal injunctions?”
A ruling in favor of Trump’s position could narrow the power of federal courts to halt nationwide policies, reshaping how quickly unconstitutional executive actions can be challenged and stopped. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching consequences — not just for immigrant families, but for the ability of courts to check presidential power. With a decision expected by early summer, the nation is awaiting clarity on who is a citizen — and who gets to decide.
Read the full argument in the Supreme Court case, CASA v. Trump, wherein five pregnant women along with CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) challenged President Trump’s executive order. And in case you missed Documented’s feature story on the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, who fought to establish birthright citizenship in the U.S., check it out here.
