U.S. Supreme Court receives filing with game-changing consequences for the nation
The Supreme Court is swimming in legal battles on their doorstep. But one just took precedence.
Because this U.S. Supreme Court filing has game-changing consequences for the nation.
Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Intervention on Universal Injunctions Blocking Birthright Citizenship Ban
On Thursday, the Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court with a pressing request: to curb the power of lower courts issuing sweeping rulings that have stalled a nationwide ban on birthright citizenship. The administration’s plea centers on the growing use of universal injunctions—court orders that halt policies across the entire country—arguing that such measures overstep judicial authority and disrupt the Executive Branch’s ability to function.
In its application to the justices, the administration contends that individual judges should not wield the power to dictate national policy from their courtrooms. By issuing universal injunctions, lower courts effectively freeze executive actions while legal challenges play out, a practice the administration says has surged in recent months. “District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [temporary restraining orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” the application notes. This spike, the administration argues, paralyzes the government’s ability to carry out its duties before courts can fully evaluate the policies in question, while also clogging the Supreme Court’s emergency docket with urgent appeals.
For now, the Trump administration is not asking the Supreme Court to rule directly on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship, signed on January 20, 2025. Instead, the focus is narrower—urging the justices to rein in the widespread use of universal injunctions. Such orders, the administration asserts, “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions, as administrations of both parties have explained.” The goal is to limit these injunctions to the specific parties involved in a case, rather than allowing them to apply nationwide.
The administration’s filing frames the issue as one with significant stakes, particularly in the context of immigration policy. “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,” the application states. Yet, it describes its current request as “modest.” Rather than seeking a definitive ruling on the executive order itself, the government asks the Court to “restrict the scope” of existing preliminary injunctions that “purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,” confining their reach to only those directly under the issuing courts’ jurisdiction.
This clash over judicial power comes amid ongoing litigation over the birthright citizenship ban, a policy that has sparked fierce debate and legal challenges since its announcement. The administration’s move signals frustration with a judiciary it views as increasingly willing to intervene in national policy disputes. By appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration hopes to reshape the balance between the branches of government, ensuring that executive actions can proceed without being stalled by far-reaching court orders—at least until their merits are fully tested in the legal system.
At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has yet to respond to the administration’s request, leaving the fate of both the injunctions and the broader birthright citizenship policy hanging in the balance.
Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Order on Birthright Citizenship
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court upheld its decision to prevent President Donald Trump from implementing an executive order that would terminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who lack legal authorization to reside in the country. This ruling marks yet another obstacle in Trump’s central mission to tighten immigration enforcement, a cornerstone of his administration’s agenda.
The decision came from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees New England, making it the second federal appeals court to deny Trump’s attempt to enforce his order while legal challenges proceed. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based on the West Coast, had previously taken a similar stance. Despite these setbacks, Trump remains optimistic, asserting that he anticipates a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court once the case reaches that level.
In this latest development, a three-judge panel from the 1st Circuit declined to lift a lower court’s injunction. That earlier ruling determined that the states challenging the order were likely to demonstrate its unconstitutionality and that the children affected would suffer irreversible harm if the policy were enacted. Chief Judge David Barron, writing the opinion alongside Judges Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe, explained that the federal government failed to present a compelling argument. Specifically, Barron noted that the government hadn’t made a “strong showing” that the state attorneys general were unlikely to prevail in their lawsuit or that the administration was “likely to succeed in showing that the Executive Order is lawful.”
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who spearheaded the legal effort against the order, hailed the ruling as a victory. He pointed out that every court to examine Trump’s directive thus far has deemed it “flagrantly unconstitutional,” with appeals courts consistently refusing to reinstate it. “We are thrilled with the First Circuit’s decision, and we look forward to standing up for our birthright citizens no matter how far the Trump Administration takes this case,” Platkin declared in a statement.
Trump issued the executive order on January 20, his first day back in office, signaling an immediate focus on immigration policy. The directive instructed U.S. agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born on American soil if neither parent held U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency status. This move sought to dismantle a long-established constitutional provision, one that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, prompting swift and widespread legal resistance. At least 10 federal lawsuits have been filed in response, with multiple judges issuing temporary blocks on the order’s enforcement.
The controversy centers on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War. Its text states: “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.” A Supreme Court decision in 1898 solidified this language as guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., a principle known as birthright citizenship.
Trump, however, has challenged this interpretation, zeroing in on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Historically, this clause has been understood to exclude children of foreign diplomats, who are not under U.S. legal authority. Trump’s administration has sought to expand its meaning to encompass the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing that their parents’ lack of legal status places their offspring outside the amendment’s scope.
Government attorneys defending the order contended that judicial interference “prevents the President from carrying out his broad authority over and responsibility for immigration matters,” ultimately damaging the public interest. They framed the policy as a necessary exercise of executive power to address immigration concerns, a position that has yet to persuade the courts.
As the legal battle continues, the issue seems destined for the Supreme Court, where Trump believes his administration will ultimately prevail. For now, though, the 1st Circuit’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s resistance to the order, leaving its fate uncertain as lawsuits progress through the system.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
