Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship order

The highest court in the United States considered arguments Thursday morning on whether President Donald Trump may enforce an executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship. Trump’s order removed automatic citizenship for any child born on U.S. soil to parents illegally or temporarily in the country. The constitutional merits of Trump’s order itself were not before the court on Thursday as the Supreme Court considered whether lower-level federal judges could stop the order from nationwide enforcement.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the United States, while New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum represented over a dozen states taking issue with the order’s enforcement. President Trump emphasized the original intent of the 14th Amendment in a social media post hours before arguments commenced. Birthright citizenship started shortly after the Civil War and has nothing to do with modern immigration policies, he wrote on social media.

Which arguments is SCOTUS considering? Several courts issued preliminary injunctions that stopped the order from being applied, arguing that Trump’s order was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will decide whether the courts have the authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions indefinitely blocking the president's order from taking effect. The high court isn’t considering the constitutionality of Trump’s order but rather whether the courts have the authority to block it nationally.

Several justices pressed Sauer on how Trump’s order would be applied should the lower judges’ nationwide injunctions be scrapped. Conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh particularly struggled to accept vague answers on how the administration planned to logistically instruct hospitals and states to treat newborns under Trump’s order. Several justices also questioned Sauer on what it would mean for the court to bar lower courts from issuing sweeping injunctions. Hypothetically, if a future president tried to combat gun violence by ordering the military to take away civilian firearms, would courts just have to wait and rule on civilian lawsuits one by one, asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Several justices similarly questioned Sauer on the idea of civilians filing individual lawsuits for the courts to rule on one by one if a precedent is set for rolling back nationwide injunctions.

Dig deeper: Read my report on several states first suing over the Trump administration's order.