President Donald Trump’s bold move to end birthright citizenship via executive order has slammed into a judicial brick wall, and now the Supreme Court is wrestling with the fallout.
On Thursday, the nation’s highest court dove into a heated debate—not about the order’s legality, but whether a single judge can slap a nationwide halt on it, as SCOTUS Blog reports, and in the process, the left’s love affair with universal injunctions is getting a reality check.
Trump signed the executive order at issue on Jan. 20, declaring that, starting Feb. 19, children born in the U.S. to illegal or temporary residents would no longer get automatic citizenship. This one-sentence bombshell sparked lawsuits from states, immigrant groups, and even pregnant women, all racing to block it before it kicked in. The Supreme Court’s job was to decide if federal judges can keep playing whack-a-mole with Trump’s agenda.
Back in Seattle, Judge John Coughenour didn’t mince words, calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” Nice try, but one judge’s opinion doesn’t rewrite the Constitution. The 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship for those born here has been a legal sacred cow since it overruled Dred Scott in 1868.
Not just Coughenour -- judges in Maryland and Massachusetts, Deborah Boardman and Leo Sorokin, also issued injunctions to stop Trump’s order cold. Federal appeals courts refused to step in, leaving the Trump administration no choice but to beg the Supreme Court’s emergency docket for relief. Turns out, judicial overreach is a bipartisan sport these days.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case back on April 17, setting the stage for a Thursday's showdown. The Trump team argued they should at least be allowed to enforce parts of the order and develop guidance, even if specific challengers were protected. Sounds reasonable, unless you’re allergic to common sense.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came out swinging, claiming universal injunctions are judicial overreach and a “bipartisan problem” plaguing the last five administrations. He’s not wrong -- judges acting like mini-dictators isn’t exactly what the Founders had in mind. Sauer also argued the order aligns with the 14th Amendment’s original intent, meant for children of former slaves, not illegal border-crossers.
The 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was front and center. In 1898, the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision confirmed that a San Francisco-born child of Chinese parents was a citizen. Justice Horace Gray called it the “ancient and fundamental rule” of birthright citizenship -- sorry, no loopholes for emperors.
But Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark argued that children of foreign citizens with ties to another country aren’t fully “subject” to U.S. jurisdiction. Sauer leaned into this, suggesting Trump’s order isn’t some radical departure but a return to constitutional roots. The left’s meltdown over this logic is predictable.
Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t buying it, snapping at Sauer that he was “dead wrong” about the order’s legality. She even quipped that “nobody’s going to lose in this case,” which sounds like a dodge to avoid the real issue. Kagan’s flair for drama doesn’t change the Constitution.
The court’s focus stayed on procedure, specifically, whether universal injunctions are a judicial power grab. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out the country “survived until the 1960s” without them, a not-so-subtle jab at modern judicial activism. Actions have consequences, and judges shouldn’t be rewriting policy from the bench.
Some justices, though, worried that swapping injunctions for class actions might be trading one mess for another. They questioned if class actions could handle the chaos of a policy like Trump’s. Fair point -- legal gymnastics won’t fix a broken immigration system. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum defended the injunctions, saying they prevent “chaos on the ground” where citizenship could flip-flop by state line. Chaos? Try telling that to the Border Patrol dealing with the real mess at the border.
Kelsi Corkran, representing private plaintiffs, claimed every court so far agrees that Trump’s order is “patently unlawful.” She warned that letting it move forward would bring “catastrophic consequences.” Hyperbole much? The only catastrophe is the open-border policies that got us here.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on the order’s scope, asking if it would apply to “all the newborns.” It’s a valid question -- logistics matter when you’re rewriting citizenship rules. The Trump team better have a plan beyond campaign promises.
A decision is expected by late June or early July 2025, leaving the nation on edge. The Supreme Court dodged the order’s constitutionality this time, but that fight’s coming. For now, Trump’s attempt to secure the border through executive action remains tangled in judicial red tape.
