6 hours ago
4
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
The question before the justices was whether a single district court judge has the power to block a policy across the country.
May 15, 2025, 2:22 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a case related to President Trump’s executive order trying to end so-called birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented migrants. But the question before the justices was narrower: whether a single district court judge has the power to block a policy across the country.
Here are four takeaways from the arguments.
The case was not really about birthright citizenship.
Video
transcript
transcript
During oral arguments on Thursday, Supreme Court justices were not considering the legal merits of an order signed by President Trump shortly after his inauguration that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.
The argument here is that the president is violating an established — not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the Wong Ark case where we said fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn’t defeat your entitlement. Your parents’ fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn’t defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child. We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. We have yet another case that says, even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and — but you were born in our territory, you’re still a citizen. And we have another case that says even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you’re still a citizen. So as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.
The justices were not considering the legal merits of Mr. Trump’s order, even though it brought greater attention to the arguments on Thursday.
Shortly after being sworn in to his second term, Mr. Trump signed an order that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.
The order seeks to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants and visitors without green cards. As a practical matter, that would start with agencies in the executive branch refusing them citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards.
Multiple courts around the country have blocked the government from obeying that order, ruling that it is most likely illegal. They did so using universal injunctions, or orders that apply nationwide and cover people in similar situations who were not parties to the cases. At this stage, the Trump administration is challenging only the ability of courts to issue such orders.
