Last month, the Trump administration submitted emergency appeals urging the Supreme Court to narrow or eliminate the nationwide injunctions currently blocking the enforcement of a key immigration policy. The administration argued that individual district judges lack the authority to issue sweeping rulings that apply across the entire country.
In a brief order issued Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to hold a special oral argument on May 15 to review the legal boundaries of such judicial authority. The decision to schedule arguments for an emergency appeal is unusual and signals that the justices are giving serious consideration to the administration’s position.
If the Court ultimately sides with the Trump administration, it could give the green light to begin enforcing its controversial citizenship policy in select parts of the country, even while legal challenges continue elsewhere.
The policy in question was introduced via executive order on the first day of President Trump’s second term. It seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if their parents are undocumented immigrants or in the country on short-term visas. The move has sparked a legal firestorm, with constitutional scholars warning that it directly contradicts both longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Though the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling will directly address the issue of nationwide injunctions, its impact will extend far beyond the birthright citizenship order. A decision in favor of the administration could limit lower courts’ ability to block federal policies on a national scale a legal tool that has been frequently used to halt various Trump-era actions during both terms.
Trump’s Justice Department has maintained that district judges should only be able to block federal policies within their specific jurisdictions, or only on behalf of the individuals or organizations who brought the lawsuit. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” the administration wrote in its emergency appeal.
On the other hand, legal experts and civil rights advocates who support nationwide injunctions argue that such sweeping blocks are often necessary to prevent unconstitutional or unlawful policies from being enforced while litigation is pending. Without them, they argue, millions of people could be harmed in regions not covered by more limited rulings.
The court’s decision, expected by late May or June, is likely to shape the future balance of power between the judiciary and executive branch for years to come.