The Supreme Court appeared receptive on Thursday to lifting several nationwide injunctions that block President Donald Trump from enforcing his birthright citizenship policy. However, justices expressed serious concerns about the consequences of allowing the government to deny citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil. After more than two hours of arguments, the court showed uncertainty about how it might balance these competing interests.
Some conservative justices suggested that groups opposing Trump’s policy should consider pursuing class-action lawsuits as a more appropriate legal route instead of nationwide injunctions. Other justices indicated a willingness to review the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order more quickly, despite lower courts consistently ruling against it. This division highlighted ongoing tensions about judicial power and presidential authority.
Kavanaugh Advocates Class Actions While Liberals Oppose Order And Conservatives Raise Implementation Concerns
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often a pivotal vote on the conservative wing, proposed class-action lawsuits as a viable alternative for challengers seeking broad court relief against Trump’s executive order. He noted that while this approach might be more complex and slower, it aligns better with traditional judicial procedures. Kavanaugh emphasized the importance of technical legal standards, such as the higher bar for class certification compared to nationwide injunctions.
Supreme Court Weighs Ending Injunctions on Trump’s Citizenship Order While Debating Broader Legal RamificationsThe liberal justices, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, strongly opposed the birthright citizenship order and expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s efforts to limit nationwide injunctions. Sotomayor cited four Supreme Court precedents that the order allegedly violated, and Kagan questioned the practicality of having individuals file separate lawsuits to challenge a policy affecting many people.
Conservative justices also raised concerns about the real-world impact of enforcing the birthright citizenship order. Kavanaugh pressed the government’s attorney on how hospitals and states would handle the issuance of citizenship documentation for newborns if the policy were allowed to take effect immediately. The administration struggled to provide clear answers about implementation, underscoring logistical challenges.
Conservative Justices Question Judicial Overreach And Debate Nationwide Injunctions Versus Class Actions
Several conservative justices expressed unease about the power of single judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies. Justice Samuel Alito warned against judicial overreach, while Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the historical use of nationwide injunctions, noting they were rare before the 1960s. Alito also questioned the necessity of the current dispute if class-action lawsuits could effectively challenge such policies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett emerged as a critical voice during the arguments, probing the government’s reluctance to address the constitutional merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Barrett extracted a concession that the legal arguments supporting the policy are “novel” and “sensitive.” She also challenged the government on why it opposes nationwide injunctions but accepts class-action suits that might yield similar broad relief.
The justices grappled with whether the case centered on judicial authority or the policy’s practical consequences. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced concern that limiting nationwide injunctions might force individuals to sue one by one to protect their rights. Despite the emergency nature of the case, it remains unclear when the Supreme Court will issue a ruling, with past emergency cases sometimes taking several months to resolve.