• The Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's order to end birthright citizenship.
• Justices question the legality of nationwide injunctions against federal policies.
• The implications of the case could affect over 150,000 newborns' citizenship annually.
• Legal scholars assert the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all born in the U.S.
• The outcome may reshape judicial power concerning executive actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a significant case concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. The order, signed on January 20, 2025, proposes that these children should not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon birth, a measure that has drawn legal challenges from 22 states and various advocacy groups. The arguments in court have primarily revolved around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which traditionally guarantees automatic citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, as affirmed by a century of legal precedent, according to NY Times and Al Jazeera.

During oral arguments, justices expressed concern about the implications of Trump's order and its potential to create statelessness among thousands of newborns. Critics, including several justices, noted that the Trump administration's stance on birthright citizenship directly conflicts with established Supreme Court rulings, including the pivotal 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that all children born in the U.S. are citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status, according to NPR and HuffPost.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing Trump's administration, argued that lower federal judges overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order, stating that courts should limit their decisions to affected plaintiffs. However, justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, raised concerns about whether restricting the power of courts to issue such injunctions would effectively leave many families vulnerable to executive action, which could deny them fundamental citizenship rights, as highlighted in articles from CBS News and Bloomberg.

The court’s conservative majority signaled a willingness to reconsider how federal judges issue nationwide injunctions, with potential implications for upcoming Trump administration actions. Nonetheless, several justices indicated that they were hesitant to allow Trump’s proposed restrictions to take effect without fully considering the order's constitutionality. The justices also noted that limiting judicial power could lead to uneven citizenship rights across states, fueling further legal disputes. "This case is a prime example of why nationwide injunctions are sometimes necessary to prevent harm," stated one justice reflecting on the potential repercussions of such a ruling, according to LA Times and Newsweek.

Legal experts have underscored the significant repercussions should the court choose to uphold Trump's order, with forecasts suggesting that over 150,000 newborns could face challenges to their citizenship status each year if the executive order is implemented. In light of this, the Supreme Court’s decision will have a profound impact on the future of birthright citizenship in the United States, an issue that is integral to national identity and legal tradition, as emphasized in numerous media reports including Industry Week and Channel News Asia.