The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this morning on what’s outwardly a case about President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. But on the substance, the arguments will delve into a different topic: the power of district courts to issue orders that take effect nationally, halting federal policy.
Three separate district court judges issued injunctions freezing Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which invokes a fringe theory in an attempt to strip the Constitution of its requirement that the government confer U.S. citizenship on those born on its territory.
The Supreme Court took the case from the shadow docket. It’s rare for the court to hear oral arguments in a case like this. There’s no question presented that the court wants the parties to address, but briefing has focused not on citizenship but rather on nationwide preliminary injunctions of the sort that blocked Trump’s order from going into effect. You’ll recall that, during the Biden administration, federal judges appointed by Trump frequently issued these kinds of national blocks.
Now, four months into Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether the same form of judicial block is legal when applied to an administration whose officials happily browbeat the courts when prompted with rulings they dislike.
Follow along below:
Listen live
Oral arguments get underway at 10 a.m. ET. Listen live on the Court's website or via C-SPAN:
Who are we hearing from?
Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, arguing for a coalition of state and local governments
Kelsi Corkran, arguing for a group of individuals affected by the order
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this morning on what’s outwardly a case about President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. But on the substance, the arguments will delve into a different topic: the power of district courts to issue orders that take effect nationally, halting federal policy.
Three separate district court judges issued injunctions freezing Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which invokes a fringe theory in an attempt to strip the Constitution of its requirement that the government confer U.S. citizenship on those born on its territory.
The Supreme Court took the case from the shadow docket. It’s rare for the court to hear oral arguments in a case like this. There’s no question presented that the court wants the parties to address, but briefing has focused not on citizenship but rather on nationwide preliminary injunctions of the sort that blocked Trump’s order from going into effect. You’ll recall that, during the Biden administration, federal judges appointed by Trump frequently issued these kinds of national blocks.
Now, four months into Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether the same form of judicial block is legal when applied to an administration whose officials happily browbeat the courts when prompted with rulings they dislike.
Follow along below:
Question for the Justices: Does it matter whether the conduct being enjoined violates the Constitution, or a law passed by Congress? It should matter, no?
If Coca Cola is dumping carcinogens in its sodas nationwide, an injunction that only applies in the Northern District of Iowa seems kind of inadequate.
Sotomayor is not having any of Sauer’s argument. Oh man and she is using the 2nd amendment as an example.
I was born in Santa Monica, California. That should be all that’s needed to claim my citizenship.
“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.”
Sauer speaking style is so fast that it is annoying.