The issue of birthright citizenship was indirectly at stake this Thursday before the United States Supreme Court. In his first week back in the White House, Donald Trump had attempted to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents — a right explicitly guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Thursday’s hearing did not directly address this challenge to jus soli (the right of soil), but rather focused on the many lower federal court rulings that blocked Trump’s presidential order nationwide.
The effort to eliminate a fundamental constitutional right is already a matter of grave concern. But for many observers, the core issue lies elsewhere: the Trump administration, through its Solicitor General, has asked the Supreme Court to restrict the authority of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
Should the justices of the nation’s highest court rule in favor of this request, the administration would be able to disregard any lower court decision it disagrees with—without even needing to appeal. In effect, such rulings would carry no legal weight for the federal government.
This argument was vigorously debated during the May 14 session. Several justices—both liberal and conservative—voiced unease. On one hand, they expressed concern over the risk of executive overreach. On the other, they questioned whether a single district judge should have the power to halt an entire federal policy across all 50 states.
The Trump administration is not the first to criticize nationwide injunctions. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden have all voiced frustration with how these judicial measures are sometimes applied broadly and, arguably, excessively.
In practice, such injunctions are often viewed by administrations as tools that obstruct their ability to implement policy. During his presidency, Barack Obama saw multiple immigration initiatives blocked by these orders. Joe Biden has faced similar setbacks—most notably in his attempt to cancel student debt for millions of Americans.
Many legal scholars agree on the need to better regulate the use of nationwide injunctions. Still, the question remains complex: how can the judiciary’s power be limited without granting the executive unchecked authority—posing potential risks to the balance of powers?
In the specific case of birthright citizenship, a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could lead to a crisis: millions of children born to undocumented parents could find themselves stateless for years, pending a final legal resolution on the constitutionality of the executive order.
In the coming days, the Supreme Court—where conservative justices hold a solid majority—will issue its decision. The ruling will carry far-reaching implications: will the Court expand executive power at the expense of judicial oversight, or will it preserve the delicate balance between the branches of government?
