Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court engaged in extensive deliberations over a pivotal case on birthright citizenship and the role of lower courts in enforcing nationwide injunctions against executive orders on Thursday, May 15, 2025. This landmark case questions the constitutionality of a recent executive action by President Donald Trump and the powers of lower courts to halt such orders across the nation.
During the oral arguments, which stretched beyond two hours, the justices grappled with the implications of Trump’s executive order that aims to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are non-citizens or unlawfully present. The dispute hinges on a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment which traditionally grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Justice Elena Kagan voiced strong reservations about the administration’s approach, particularly questioning U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s defense of the executive order. She pointed out the administration’s continued losses in lower court battles concerning this issue, signifying broad judicial disagreement with the policy.
Sauer, in his arguments, posited that the widespread use of nationwide injunctions by district courts inhibits coherent policymaking at the national level, asserting that such injunctions should be confined to the specific regions or individuals involved in the lawsuit.
This stance was met with skepticism from the court’s liberal block. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the court should merely observe if a president overstepped legal bounds dramatically, invoking a hypothetical scenario where a president might attempt to seize all firearms nationwide.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, representing the conservative wing, also challenged Sauer rigorously, especially on whether the administration feels constrained to abide by all federal court rulings, highlighting the gravity of judicial oversight on executive powers.
The oral arguments also took a deeper dive into the broader ramifications of striking down nationwide injunctions. Without such injunctions, each affected individual might have to file separate lawsuits to challenge presidential orders – a scenario Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likened to a “catch me if you can kind of regime.”
Outside the courtroom, the case has drawn significant public attention, with hundreds gathering in protest and advocacy. Demonstrators, including notable figures such as Representative Nancy Pelosi, expressed vehement opposition to the order, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The implications of this case stretch beyond the immediate legal arguments to the heart of U.S. immigration policy and constitutional rights. Over 150,000 children born in the U.S. each year to non-citizen parents could be affected by the policy change, essentially altering the fabric of national identity and citizenship.
New Jersey’s Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing states opposing the order, underscored the potential chaos of an inconsistent application of birthright citizenship across different states. He advocated for the prudent use of nationwide injunctions but accepted that their scope should be carefully delimited.
The discussion in court also touched upon alternative legal remedies such as class-action lawsuits, which Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested might serve similar ends as nationwide injunctions without the associated broad judicial reach. However, this idea met with resistance from advocates who argued it could expose vulnerable populations to significant risks.
As the justices deliberate, the outcome of this case will crucially influence the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, potentially redefining the scope of both presidential authority and judicial intervention in the United States. A decision is expected by early summer and will be watched closely for its wide-ranging impact on federal lawsuit dynamics and core constitutional issues amid Trump’s second term in office.