WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared poised on Thursday to uphold the nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, even as it explored ways to narrow the scope of nationwide court injunctions.
During oral arguments, a majority of the justices expressed strong concerns about the consequences of allowing the Trump administration, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally.
The court heard emergency appeals from the administration challenging lower court rulings that have kept the birthright citizenship restrictions on hold nationwide. These nationwide injunctions have become a critical legal tool, halting many of Trump’s government policies and fueling frustration within the administration and its supporters.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump’s second term began in January. Birthright citizenship is one of several immigration-related issues the administration has asked the court to consider urgently.
The justices are also reviewing the administration’s efforts to end humanitarian parole protections for more than 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, as well as temporary legal protections for another 350,000 Venezuelans. Legal disputes continue over the government’s attempts to rapidly deport alleged gang members to El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents here illegally or temporarily. This order conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling from 1898 affirming that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to virtually all children born on American soil, with only limited exceptions not relevant here.
States, immigrant groups, and civil rights organizations quickly filed lawsuits, and lower courts barred the administration from enforcing the order while litigation continues. The current legal battle centers on whether the administration can enforce the order against individuals who have not yet sued.
Liberal justices expressed clear support for the lower courts’ rulings, emphasizing the long-established legal understanding of birthright citizenship that dates back over 125 years.
“Every court has ruled against you,” Justice Elena Kagan told the government’s lawyer. She warned that if the government were allowed to enforce the order against those who have not sued, it would unfairly affect people who cannot afford to bring legal challenges.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the administration’s approach as a “catch me if you can” strategy, forcing individuals to initiate lawsuits just to stop government violations of their rights.
Brett Kavanaugh just grilled the government on how hospitals and states are supposed to handle newborn citizenship under Trump’s order. “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” May 15, 2025
Some conservative justices, potentially open to curbing nationwide injunctions, asked about the practical implications of such a move and the timeline for a final ruling on the citizenship order.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned how hospitals and states would handle births under the new policy. Sauer replied that official procedures might not change immediately but suggested the government could reject documents showing citizenship status it deemed improper.
Kavanaugh pressed for clarity, pointing out the government had only 30 days to develop enforcement policies after the order was issued.
The administration has argued, as the Biden administration did before it, that nationwide injunctions go too far by blocking policies for everyone rather than just the parties involved in a case.
Justice Samuel Alito, while respectful to district judges, noted that some judges suffer from an “occupational disease” where they believe they are always right and can act freely.
In contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the confusing patchwork of rules that would arise if nationwide injunctions were narrowed and citizenship restrictions took effect in some states but not others.
She warned that some children might become effectively “stateless” — denied citizenship in the U.S. and unable to claim it from their parents’ home countries.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing 22 states challenging the order, explained that citizenship status could differ dramatically for children born just miles apart, such as across the Delaware River between Camden, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
One possible path forward for the court is to replace nationwide injunctions with class action lawsuits, where individuals represent larger groups. Such cases could move swiftly and potentially apply nationwide.
However, Sauer suggested the administration might resist or delay class action suits.
Emergency appeals like these are rare before the Supreme Court, which usually waits to address the full merits of a case. The administration has not yet asked the court to rule on the broader constitutional issues raised by the executive order.
If the court sides with the government on limiting nationwide injunctions, questions remain about how long inconsistent citizenship rules might apply across the country.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.
