Today's News: Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship
While the case technically focuses on judicial authority, the justices grappled with the broader implications of Trump’s order, which contradicts longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
Photo: Drew Angerer/AFP
Overview
Date: May 15, 2025
Topic: Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions
Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of nationwide injunctions used to block President Donald Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented migrants and non-permanent residents. While the case technically focuses on judicial authority, the justices grappled with the broader implications of Trump’s order, which contradicts longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Most lower courts have blocked the order, citing more than a century of precedent. The justices appeared divided, expressing concern both about executive overreach and judicial overreach, while highlighting the legal and logistical consequences of state-by-state citizenship recognition.
Sources
The New York Times: 4 Takeaways From the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Case
CNN: Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions
NBC News: Supreme Court appears skeptical of allowing Trump to implement birthright citizenship plan
Fox News: Justice Kagan snaps at Trump lawyer in major case: 'Every court has ruled against you'
The Washington Post: Supreme Court grapples with nationwide orders blocking birthright citizenship ban
The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Puzzles Over Trump’s Decree to Limit Birthright Citizenship
Key Points
All justices debated whether federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions, with conservatives raising concerns about judicial overreach and liberals emphasizing the need to protect constitutional rights.
The Trump order would deny birthright citizenship to children of noncitizens without green cards, potentially affecting over 250,000 babies annually.
Justices across the spectrum voiced concern over the logistical chaos if different states applied different standards of citizenship.
Precedents such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and others affirm citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, a position Trump’s order contradicts.
Several justices (including Kagan, Sotomayor, and Barrett) questioned whether class-action lawsuits could effectively replace nationwide injunctions.
Unique Highlights
The New York Times emphasized how the court avoided ruling on the merits of Trump’s order while highlighting that no justice explicitly supported its legality.
CNN noted Barrett’s concern that the administration’s refusal to consider a nationwide injunction undermines any realistic path to relief for those affected.
NBC News provided specific numbers: 22 states sued to block the order, and 6,000 out-of-state births occur annually in New Jersey alone, complicating state benefit eligibility.
Fox News highlighted Kagan’s sharp exchange with Trump’s lawyer, underlining judicial frustration with the administration’s strategy.
The Washington Post detailed how Trump’s legal strategy centers on eroding precedent and circumventing judicial checks on executive power.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Chief Justice Roberts suggested the Court could rule quickly, citing past expedited cases like TikTok.
Contrasting Details
The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post noted that the administration gave little assurance it would abide by circuit-level rulings, suggesting an intent to fragment enforcement across jurisdictions.
Fox News underscored the antagonism between justices and Trump’s legal strategy, while CNN and NBC News placed more focus on potential avenues for compromise, such as class actions.
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).