High Court judges show signs of disagreement in debates over birthright citizenship implications
In a dramatic turn of events on May 15, 2025, the pompous U.S. Supreme Court grappled with the divisive question of how lower courts should handle President Trump's fiery executive order on birthright citizenship.
No button? Try clicking here instead.
For years, Trump has been broadcasting his controversial belief that birthright citizenship is a bogus concept. bucking a 127-year-old Supreme Court ruling that established that babies born within the United States automatically get U.S. citizenship. Ever the showman, Trump, on his very first day in office this year, issued an executive order squawking that the children of parents who waltz into the U.S. without papers or on temporary visas should be denied automatic citizenship.
Naturally, immigrant rights groups, along with 22 states, slapped the administration with lawsuits. Three different federal district court judges had the audacity to shoot down Trump's order, issuing something called universal injunctions that ban the government from implementing the Trump policy across the country.
When the appellate courts refused to step in while the dirty laundry hung on the courtroom line, the now-troubled administration begged the Supreme Court to put a stop to these obnoxious universal injunctions, arguing that single district judges should not be accorded such sweeping authority. So, on this fateful Thursday, the Court heard emergency arguments in the perplexing case.
The Court's conservatives didn't exactly reveal their hand. Although some of them have decried the abolition of these nationwide injunctions in the past, on this day, they didn't seem quite so sure, particularly after Solicitor General D. John Sauer kicked off his argument, asserting that Trump got it right in claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misconstrued for 127 years.
"This executive order aligns with the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, which sought citizenship for children born to former slaves, not for breachers of immigration laws or transitory passersby," Sauer thundered. He then went on to say that the judges who temporarily shelved the enforcement of Trump's policy had exceeded their constitutional authority.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised a valid concern: If a new president pitched a plan to seize all the guns in the country, wouldn't we be left just sitting on our hands, waiting for every gun-owner to come knocking at the courtroom door?
Justice Elena Kagan followed up, posing another relevant question to Sauer: "Assuming you're crazy," Kagan said, "how can we get a single, rational rule of citizenship compared to the rule [Trump’s executive order] would propose?"
When Sauer hedged on whether the administration would accept whatever ruling the courts handed them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sniffed out the evasion: "Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government might decide not to abide by traditional circuit court precedents, such as in New York, if the government disagrees with the ruling?"
In reply, Sauer admitted, "Sometimes there are exceptional circumstances."
Other justices pressed Sauer further.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh fired off a barrage of practical questions, such as: "What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?"
"Federal officials will have to figure it out," Sauer responded, leading Kavanaugh to wonder aloud, "How?"
Sauer suggested that the administration could require documentation from parents proving their legal status in the U.S. When Kavanaugh inquired whether this documentation would be required for every baby born in the country, Sauer stammered, "We'd be unsure about that."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interjected, "Your argument seems to convert our justice system into a game of catch-me-if-you-can, where every person has to hire a lawyer and sue in order for the government to stop violating their rights."
Sauer suggested that litigants could file class actions instead of individual lawsuits, but Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states, countered, "It will create chaos on the ground."
Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that there are 680 district court judges in the country, and if all of them could impose nationwide injunctions, that would create a whirlwind of turmoil, but Alito didn't seem convinced that class actions would solve the problem.
"So the answer is that we won't solve the practical problem," Alito concluded, adding, "So, what's the point of this argument about universal injunctions then?"
Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether allowing appellate courts more time to mull over the merits of the case before it lands on the Supreme Court's desk might alleviate some of the confusion. A decision in the matter is expected to drop by early summer. Copyright 2025 NPR
- The Supreme Court's hearing on May 15, 2025, centered around the controversial policy of President Trump regarding birthright citizenship, a key issue in the realm of politics and policy-and-legislation.
- The ongoing war-and-conflicts between the Trump administration and immigrant rights groups over birthright citizenship has resulted in a series of general-news events, with the latest being the Supreme Court's investigation of the administration's policy and the issue of universal injunctions.
