Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Debate on Birthright Citizenship and National Injunctions

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order and Nationwide Injunctions

The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared receptive to lifting nationwide court orders that have blocked President Donald Trump from implementing his controversial birthright citizenship policy. But the justices also grappled with the constitutional and practical implications of allowing the government to deny citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil.

After more than two hours of oral arguments, a clear majority position did not emerge. While conservative justices showed concern about lower courts’ sweeping power to halt executive actions, they also raised questions about the enforceability and legality of Trump’s executive order.

Several conservatives suggested that rather than rely on broad injunctions, challengers could pursue alternative legal avenues—such as class-action lawsuits—to block the policy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often seen as a swing vote, emphasized this approach, stating that although it’s a more technically demanding route, it aligns better with judicial norms.

“We care about the technicalities,” Kavanaugh remarked, underscoring his concern that nationwide injunctions may bypass traditional legal checks.

However, liberal justices and even conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged that argument. They noted that class certification is a lengthy, uncertain process—and questioned whether the administration would obstruct those efforts, rendering it an ineffective alternative for swift constitutional relief.

Barrett pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether the administration had any realistic plan for enforcing Trump’s policy if allowed to proceed. “Are you really saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” she asked, clearly unconvinced.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took a more direct approach, arguing that Trump’s policy contradicts multiple Supreme Court precedents. “You’re claiming no court—not even this one—can universally stop a clear constitutional violation?” she asked, incredulously.

The policy in question, signed by Trump on his first day back in office, would prevent federal agencies from issuing citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to non-citizens. Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about how this would function in practice. “Does every person affected have to bring their own lawsuit?” she asked. “How do we maintain a consistent national standard for citizenship?”

Even conservative justices raised logistical concerns. Kavanaugh asked, “What do hospitals do with a newborn the day after this order takes effect?” Sauer responded vaguely, prompting further skepticism.

Underlying the debate is a broader issue: whether a single district judge should have the power to block presidential actions nationwide. Justice Samuel Alito warned of the “occupational hazard” of judicial overreach, while Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that nationwide injunctions were rare before the 1960s.

Still, Alito questioned the need for a sweeping fight over injunctions if class-action suits could achieve the same effect. “What’s the point of this argument?” he asked.

Justice Barrett emerged as a pivotal voice. She questioned why the administration avoided defending the order’s constitutionality head-on, prompting Sauer to concede that the legal arguments behind the order were “novel” and “sensitive.” That acknowledgment cast further doubt on the administration’s confidence in the policy.

Barrett also scrutinized the administration’s preference for class-action judgments, which would still bind the government broadly. Sauer argued that class actions require plaintiffs to assume greater risk—if they lose, the ruling applies to them all, unlike injunctions that offer one-sided relief.

As the justices tried to disentangle questions of judicial power from the constitutionality of the order itself, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of a dangerous precedent: “Your argument turns our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ regime,” she said, where only those with the means to sue can have their rights protected.

Although the case reached the court on an emergency basis, a ruling could still take weeks. In past emergency arguments, the court has taken months to issue opinions, suggesting a decision may not come until the end of the term in June.