The Supreme Court convened on Thursday, May 15, 2025, to hear arguments in a prominent case concerning birthright citizenship and the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. Justice Elena Kagan expressed criticism of the Trump administration’s legal stance.
During the extensive oral arguments, which lasted over two hours, Kagan questioned U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer regarding the administration’s tactics in the case. This case disputes the capacity of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that have previously blocked 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 an interaction that highlighted the proceedings’ intensity.
As Sauer tried to address legal mechanisms for such scenarios, Kagan interrupted to stress the practical implications. “This is not a hypothetical — this is happening out there. Every court is ruling against you,” she noted, referring to the administration’s repeated defeats in lower courts concerning birthright citizenship.
The dispute involves three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year, halting President Trump’s executive order signed on January 20, 2025. The order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment by denying 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 birth.
Sauer, representing the administration, argued that nationwide injunctions constitute judicial overreach and that lower courts should limit their injunctions to the specific plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits. He contended that the widespread use of such universal injunctions has “exploded” since 2007 and represents a “pathology” in the legal system.
The administration’s stance encountered skepticism from the court’s liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented a hypothetical regarding 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 fostering a “catch me if you can kind of regime” necessitating individual lawsuits for each affected person.
Even among the court’s conservative justices, particularly Justice Amy Coney Barrett, challenging questions were posed to Sauer. Barrett inquired about the government’s reluctance to address the core constitutional issue of birthright citizenship and later questioned whether the administration believes it is bound to comply with all federal court decisions.
When Sauer admitted that the Trump administration does not always adhere to lower court precedents, Barrett appeared concerned, 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 broader implications beyond birthright citizenship. A Supreme Court decision could set a precedent affecting numerous federal lawsuits challenging White House policies since Trump began his second term. According to a Fox News analysis, over 310 such lawsuits have been filed since January 20.
While the procedural issue of nationwide injunctions was the primary focus, the court also discussed birthright citizenship. Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment, which ensures birthright citizenship, was originally intended for freed slaves, not immigrants.
Justice Sotomayor disagreed, noting that Trump’s order could render thousands of newborns “stateless” — not citizens of the U.S. and potentially not recognized by their parents’ countries. She highlighted that many lower courts found the order violates “not only precedent but the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment.”
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing states challenging the order, warned of “unprecedented chaos on the ground” if nationwide injunctions were removed. He urged the justices to consider the impracticality of birthright citizenship being recognized in some states but not others.
Feigenbaum, who has successfully argued before the Supreme Court, acknowledged concerns about district courts impacting national policy and agreed that nationwide injunctions should be used sparingly, suggesting the Court could help define when such injunctions are appropriate.
Kelsi Corkran, representing individual families and immigrant advocacy groups, opposed Justice Kavanaugh’s idea that class-action lawsuits could replace nationwide injunctions. She explained that this approach would require vulnerable immigrants to identify themselves to the government, exposing them to “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 the case. Chief Justice John Roberts observed that allowing appeals courts time to rule on merits before cases reach the Supreme Court might be beneficial. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” suggesting the legal system could operate without them.
Justice Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump during his first term, sought a middle ground by exploring whether class-action lawsuits could provide the same benefits as nationwide injunctions while addressing concerns about judicial overreach.
A decision in this significant case is anticipated by early summer, potentially influencing both the specific issue of birthright citizenship and the broader judiciary-executive branch relationship during Trump’s second term.
