Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in cases challenging birthright citizenship order

Washington — President Trump on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to limit for now the scope of three lower court orders that broadly blocked enforcement of his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The Trump administration asked the high court for emergency relief in three separate requests, which arise out of cases brought in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. In all three disputes, U.S. district court judges issued orders blocking nationwide enforcement of Mr. Trump's executive order, which was issued his first day in office.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris is now asking the high court to limit the sweep of those orders to cover only those individuals who are directly involved in the cases. 

"These cases — which involve challenges to the president's January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship — raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border," she wrote in the requests. "But at this stage, the government comes to this court with a 'modest' request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purpor[t] to cover every person in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power."

Trump's birthright citizenship order

Mr. Trump issued his executive order seeking to terminate birthright citizenship on his first day in office, part of a broad, long-promised crackdown on illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border. The order denies U.S. citizenship to children born to mothers who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily on visas, and whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

The president's executive action sparked immediate legal challenges, including in the cases that have now arrived at the Supreme Court. The challengers all argue Mr. Trump's order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Four U.S. district judges — in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington — issued orders blocking enforcement of the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship. Efforts by the Trump administration to have U.S. appeals courts restrict the scope of three of those decisions to apply only the parties — which include 22 states, members of two organizations and seven individuals — while legal proceedings move forward have not been successful.

In its request to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said it should clear the way for the president's birthright citizenship order to partially take effect. Harris, who represents the federal government before the court, largely criticized the scope of the relief — which extends nationwide — and warned that these injunctions harm the executive branch's ability to carry out its functions.

"District courts have issued more universal injunctions and [temporary restraining orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden administration," she wrote. "That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the executive branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this court's emergency docket."

She noted that the decisions arising out of challenges to Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order cover all 50 states and "millions of aliens across the country."

"This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched," the acting solicitor general wrote.

On the issue of immigration, specifically, Harris said the lower court orders impede the president's efforts to address what she said is a crisis at the southern border.

"The district courts' universal injunctions threaten to perpetuate those problems by holding out a nationwide incentive for illegal immigration: the prospect of American citizenship for the unlawful migrants' children and of derivative immigration benefits for the migrants themselves," she argued.

Republicans and Democrats alike have sought these nationwide orders when challenging the policies of a president from the opposing political party, and decisions granting that broad relief have been criticized by administrations on both sides of the political spectrum.

Even several members of the Supreme Court have expressed concern about the soundness of these broad orders, which bar the government from enforcing the policy at issue against anyone, anywhere in the country. In a 2018 concurring opinion in a case involving Mr. Trump's travel ban issued during his first term, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that district courts in Hawaii and Maryland entered preliminary injunctions that barred the Trump administration from enforcing the policy, and said he was skeptical they have the authority to do so.

"If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality," he said.