The Supreme Court heard a case on Thursday tied to President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship.
At issue is the method of nationwide injunctions that lower court judges have used to block Trump's plan to eliminate birthright citizenship. Liberal and conservative justices both posed critical questions to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued the case on behalf of the administration.
The case could have implications far beyond the birthright citizenship case.
The Supreme Court will consider whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions. President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that would no longer automatically grant citizenship at birth to children of immigrants in the U.S. without legal status.
One day later, 22 states signed onto lawsuits to stop the order from being enforced.
The Democratic-led states argue that birthright citizenship is a right for all people born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868.
In the following weeks, several district court judges issued injunctions stopping the Trump administration from implementing the order. The Trump administration is arguing that federal district court judges should not be able to issue such wide injunctions.
RELATED STORY | Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions
Justices weighed the implications of limiting the power federal district court judges have.
“Does every single person who is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer. “How long does it take?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more direct with one of her questions, stating that the administration is proposing "catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights."
Sauer argued that people who want to file lawsuits can go "judge shopping," in hopes of getting a judge more favorable to their desired outcome.
Birthright citizenship grants legal citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship.
The Supreme Court previously deferred Trump’s request to enforce the plan.
The Democratic-led states argue that birthright citizenship is a right for all people born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868.
The first section of the 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT | Government cannot deport Georgetown scholar until court rules, judge orders
But President Trump and his allies argue that birthright citizenship allows migrants living in the U.S. illegally to remain in the country if they give birth to a child who becomes a U.S. citizen.
Multiple attorneys general disagree with President Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
According to Pew Research, there are about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 living with an unauthorized immigrant parent. Pew also states that as of 2022, there are 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., representing 3.3% of the population.
The Supreme Court likely won't decide on the case until June or July.
