WASHINGTON — Thursday, May 9, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today in a case rooted in former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. However, the Court will not be ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself, but rather on a critical procedural issue: whether federal courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

“This case is not about the underlying merits,” said GianCarlo Canaparo, senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, during a press briefing last week. He noted that the acting U.S. solicitor general was “very strategic” in steering the case toward the issue of nationwide injunctions instead of addressing Trump’s executive order directly.

The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day in office, reinterpreted the 14th Amendment — which traditionally grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Trump’s order narrowed that interpretation, focusing on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It argues that children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

The executive order faced immediate legal pushback. Three federal courts issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily blocking the order from being enforced — not only for the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuits, but across the country.

These sweeping judicial blocks have long been a subject of legal controversy, with critics arguing they give single judges the power to halt federal policies nationwide. Today’s case marks a pivotal moment for the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether such broad injunctions are within the scope of judicial authority.

If the Court finds nationwide injunctions unconstitutional or overly broad, it could dramatically reshape the way federal policies are challenged. Trump’s birthright citizenship order, for example, could take effect in regions where courts have not explicitly blocked it, even while legal battles continue elsewhere.

Legal scholar Amy Swearer, also of the Heritage Foundation, predicted that the underlying constitutional battle over birthright citizenship is far from over.

“The legal case that looks at the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is likely going to be a much longer drawn-out legal battle,” Swearer said.

At the heart of the matter is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has, since its ratification in 1868, been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Trump’s order challenged this long-standing interpretation, fueling both legal and political debate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions, expected later this year, could have far-reaching implications on executive power, immigration policy, and how federal courts enforce or restrain presidential directives.