The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday, May 15, 2025, in a significant case concerning birthright citizenship and the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. Justice Elena Kagan criticized the Trump administration’s legal position during the proceedings.
In the extended oral arguments, Justice Kagan challenged U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer regarding the administration’s stance on the case. The case questions the power of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions that have obstructed President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
“If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I’d approach the court with this case!” Kagan remarked during a moment that highlighted the intensity of the session.
When Sauer attempted to address legal avenues for similar situations, Kagan underscored the real-world implications. “This is not a hypothetical — this is happening out there. Every court is ruling against you,” she emphasized, referring to the administration’s repeated defeats in lower courts on the birthright citizenship issue.
The case involves three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year, blocking President Trump’s executive order signed on January 20, 2025. The order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
Sauer, representing the administration, argued that nationwide injunctions are an overreach of judicial power and that lower courts should only restrict the order for specific plaintiffs involved in lawsuits. He stated that such injunctions have “exploded” in use since 2007 and represent a “pathology” in the legal system.
The court’s liberal justices were skeptical of the administration’s position. Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a scenario about presidential overreach: “If a new president decided to seize all guns in the country, would we in the courts have to sit back and wait until every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the administration’s argument as creating a “catch me if you can kind of regime” that would require each affected individual to file their own lawsuit.
Even among the court’s conservative justices, there were tough questions for Sauer, particularly from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett pressed him on the government’s refusal to address the substantive constitutional question about birthright citizenship and later questioned whether the administration believes it needs to follow all federal court decisions.
When Sauer acknowledged that the Trump administration does not always adhere to lower court precedents, Barrett expressed concern, asking, “Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a … circuit court precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?”
The case has broad implications beyond birthright citizenship. A Supreme Court decision could set a precedent affecting hundreds of federal lawsuits challenging White House actions since Trump started his second term. According to a Fox News analysis, more than 310 such lawsuits have been filed since January 20.
While the legal question about nationwide injunctions dominated the proceedings, the court also touched on the substantive issue of birthright citizenship. Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, was intended for freed slaves, not immigrants to the United States.
Justice Sotomayor disagreed with this interpretation, noting that Trump’s order could leave thousands of newborns “stateless” – not citizens in the U.S. and potentially not granted citizenship by their parents’ countries of origin. She pointed out that many lower courts had found the order violates “not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.”
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states challenging the order, warned of “unprecedented chaos on the ground” if nationwide injunctions were eliminated. He urged the justices to consider the impracticality of having birthright citizenship recognized in some states but not others.
Feigenbaum, who has previously successfully argued before the Supreme Court, acknowledged concerns about district courts affecting nationwide policy and agreed that nationwide injunctions should be used sparingly, suggesting the Court could help outline when such injunctions are appropriate.
Kelsi Corkran, representing individual families and immigrant advocacy groups, argued against Justice Kavanaugh’s suggestion that class-action lawsuits could replace nationwide injunctions. She explained this approach would require vulnerable immigrants to identify themselves to the government, putting them “at great risk of adverse consequences, detention or deportation.”
The stakes are particularly high for immigrant families affected by the executive order. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect, according to plaintiffs challenging the directive.
Outside the Supreme Court building, hundreds of protesters gathered to oppose Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Some chanted pro-immigrant slogans while Representative Nancy Pelosi, standing on the court’s steps, read aloud the text of the 14th Amendment to cheers from the crowd.
The justices appeared divided on how to resolve the complex case. Chief Justice John Roberts noted there may be benefits to allowing appeals courts enough time to rule on the merits before cases reach the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that “we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” suggesting the legal system could function without them.
Justice Kavanaugh, who Trump appointed during his first term, sought middle ground by exploring whether class-action lawsuits could provide the same practical benefits as nationwide injunctions while addressing concerns about judicial overreach.
A decision in this high-profile case is expected by early summer, potentially reshaping both the immediate question of birthright citizenship and the broader relationship between the judiciary and executive branch during Trump’s second term.
