U.S. Customs and Border Patrol / Flickr
CV NEWS FEED // The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a pivotal case over whether lower courts can block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
On his first day in office this January, Trump signed an order halting automatic citizenship for children born to non-citizens, unless at least one parent is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, citing the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision.
Trump defended the order Thursday on Truth Social, writing: “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them.”
“Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves. As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that,” Trump added. “It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years.”
The case centers on the legality of universal injunctions—sweeping rulings that block federal actions nationwide.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such injunctions undermine the constitutional limits of judicial power.
“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” Sauer told the Court. “Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems.”
Sauer also reinforced Trump’s position, challenging the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th Amendment that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves,” Sauer said, “not to the children of illegal immigrants who really were not even a very discreet class at that time.”
The justices appeared divided. Some questioned whether nationwide injunctions amount to judicial overreach that halts executive authority. Others, including liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned against eliminating judicial checks on presidential power.
“You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said.
The hearing comes as the Trump administration continues to criticize “activist judges” for overstepping their powers with politically motivated rulings.
As CatholicVote previously reported, two Democratic judges in Wisconsin and New Mexico were recently arrested for aiding illegal immigrants and interfering with federal enforcement. In a separate case last month, Catholic pro-life activist Mark Houck appealed a judge’s dismissal of his lawsuit against the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, citing political bias.
A decision is expected by late June or early July.