WASHINGTON (AP) 鈥 The Supreme Court is hearing its first set of Trump-related arguments in the second Trump presidency. The case stems from the executive order President Donald Trump issued on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The executive order marks a major change to the provision of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to people born in the United States, with just a couple of exceptions.
Immigrants, rights groups and states sued to challenge the executive order. Federal judges have uniformly cast doubt on Trump鈥檚 reading of the Citizenship Clause. Three judges have blocked the order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S., including U.S. District Judge John Coughenour. 鈥淚鈥檝e been on the bench for over four decades. I can鈥檛 remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,鈥 Coughenour said at a hearing in his Seattle courtroom.
The Supreme Court is taking up emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration asking to be able to enforce the executive order in most of the country, at least while lawsuits over the order proceed. The constitutionality of the order is not before the court just yet. Instead, the justices are looking at potentially limiting the authority of individual judges to issue rulings that apply throughout the United States. These are known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions.
Justices try to pin down Sauer’s argument
Justice Kagan cut to the heart of the case by asking Sauer that, if the court concludes Trump鈥檚 order is illegal, how the nation鈥檚 highest court could strike down the measure under the administration鈥檚 theory of courts鈥 limited power.
鈥淒oes every single person who is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?鈥 Kagan asked. 鈥淗ow long does it take?鈥
Sauer tried to answer, but several of Kagan鈥檚 colleagues, along with the justice, jumped in to say they didn鈥檛 hear a clear way the court could swiftly ensure the government could not take unconstitutional action. Roberts tried to help by jumping in to note the high court has moved fast in the past, concluding the TikTok case in one month.
鈥淕eneral Sauer, are you really going to answer Kagan by saying there is no way to do this expeditiously?鈥 Coney Barrett asks Sauer.
She pressed Sauer to say whether a class-action lawsuit could be another way for judges to issue a court order that could affect more people. He said the administration would likely push back on efforts of people to bind together for a class-action lawsuit, but that it would be another way for cases to move forward.
Justice Alito pointed out that multiple states have also sued over the birthright citizenship order and won broader victories. The Trump administration is also arguing that states shouldn鈥檛 have been able to do that, but Sauer sticks to his point about the nationwide injunctions, saying they yield 鈥渁ll these sort of pathologies.鈥
Sotomayor returned how Trump鈥檚 order could affect people, saying it for some babies it could 鈥渞ender them stateless.鈥
Justices pepper Trump’s Solicitor General with questions in oral arguments
Arguing first is D. John Sauer, the solicitor general and the government鈥檚 top attorney before the Supreme Court. Sauer also served as a personal lawyer for Trump as he fought election interference charges filed in 2023. Before that, Sauer served as Missouri鈥檚 solicitor general and a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Sauer began by taking aim at decisions from lower courts that apply nationwide. He argued that they go beyond the courts鈥 authority and allow people who want to file lawsuits to go 鈥渏udge shopping鈥 for those they expect to agree. The decisions are often rushed, he said.
鈥淭his is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administration,鈥 he said.
Nationwide injunctions have become especially frustrating for the Trump administration, as opponents of the president鈥檚 policies file hundreds of lawsuits challenging his flurry of executive orders.
After a series of questions from Justices Brown Jackson and Coney Barrett about the possible implications of nationwide court orders more generally, Justice Gorsuch raised another question about birthright citizenship in particular: 鈥淲hat do you say to the suggestion in this case those patchwork problems for the government as well as for the plaintiffs justify broader relief?鈥
Sauer responded that it is a problem for the executive branch to deal with.
The court issued an opinion unrelated to birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court has revived who fatally shot a man during a traffic stop over unpaid tolls. The justices Thursday ordered the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take a new look at the case of Ashtian Barnes, who died in his rental car in 2016 on the shoulder of the Sam Houston Tollway. Barnes was shot by Officer Roberto Felix Jr., who jumped on the sill of the driver鈥檚 door of Barnes鈥 car as it began to pull away from the stop. Felix鈥檚 lawyers say he fired twice in two seconds because he 鈥渞easonably feared for his life.鈥
Trump presses for restrictions ahead of arguments
President Donald Trump is weighing in ahead of arguments in the birthright citizenship case today.
Trump says in an online post that granting citizenship to people born here, long seen as a constitutional promise, makes the country look 鈥淪TUPID鈥 and like 鈥淪UCKERS.鈥 He incorrectly asserted the U.S. is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship. While not every country grants it, about 30 other countries do, including Canada.
His executive order at the heart of today鈥檚 case aims to end birthright citizenship for children born to people in the U.S. illegally, something many legal scholars say would require amending the Constitution.
Three lawyers will present arguments to the court
Solicitor General D. John Sauer is representing the Trump administration in urging the court to allow Trump鈥檚 restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect in at least 27 states. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum is arguing on behalf of the states that say they鈥檒l lose millions of dollars in health and other benefits available to U.S. children and also have to overhaul identification systems since birth certificates will no longer serve as proof of citizenship. Kelsi Corkran is representing pregnant women and immigrant rights groups that say chaos will result if Trump鈥檚 order takes effect anywhere.
The justices will take the bench at 10 o鈥檆lock Eastern time, but the livestream won鈥檛 begin immediately. The court will issue at least one opinion before hearing arguments, so it could be 10 minutes before the Chief Justice John Roberts invites Solicitor General D. John Sauer to begin.
The livestream will be available on the court鈥檚 website, , or C-SPAN. C-SPAN asked Roberts to allow cameras to carry the case live, but he did not respond to the request, C-SPAN said. The Supreme Court has never allowed cameras in the courtroom.
A decision should come relatively soon. The Supreme Court typically rules in all its argued cases by the end of June and this one shouldn鈥檛 be any different. If anything, an order from the court might come quickly because the legal issue before the justices is not whether Trump鈥檚 birthright citizenship restrictions are constitutional, but whether to grant the administration鈥檚 emergency appeals to narrow lower court orders against it while lawsuits proceed.
___
