The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on May 15 over the scope of judicial power in the ongoing legal battle surrounding President Donald Trump’s executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States, Politico reported.
However, the constitutional validity of the birthright citizenship order itself is not the immediate focus. Instead, the court will address a more technical—but potentially far-reaching—issue: whether lower court judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies across the entire country.
The issue stems from three federal judges who issued sweeping injunctions against Trump’s order, declaring it unconstitutional and in direct violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” reads the critical clause of the 14th Amendment.
In response, the Trump administration filed emergency appeals in March, challenging the broad reach of these injunctions. The appeals argue that district court judges should not have the power to block federal policies nationwide, but rather only within their jurisdiction or for the specific plaintiffs involved in the case.
In a rare move, the Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to schedule a special oral hearing on the matter, signaling the justices’ interest in reevaluating how lower court rulings can constrain executive power.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” argued the Trump administration in its appeal, as cited by Politico.
If the court sides with the administration, it could significantly narrow the use of nationwide injunctions and allow the controversial citizenship policy to be implemented in some jurisdictions, despite being blocked elsewhere.
The policy in question, announced on the first day of Trump’s second term, seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or short-term visa holders, a move that many legal scholars argue directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent.
Supporters of nationwide injunctions, however, say they are essential tools to prevent widespread harm from unlawful government actions, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
The outcome of this case could have major implications not only for immigration law, but also for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch—a debate that has intensified in recent years.