Supreme Court Weighs Birthright Citizenship, Nationwide Injunctions

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday regarding the legality of President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. The justices' discussions revealed significant concerns about both the order itself and the prevalent use of nationwide injunctions to block presidential policies. Justice Elena Kagan voiced her concern, stating, "If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case." This highlights the justices' skepticism toward the executive order. The administration, represented by D. John Sauer, countered by advocating for individual or class-action lawsuits instead of nationwide injunctions. However, Justice Kagan further questioned, "Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?" This underscores the court's apprehension about the potential for a less efficient and more expensive legal process. The justices also explored the practical implications of limiting nationwide injunctions, with concerns raised about the fairness and efficiency of the justice system. The discussion included Justice Amy Coney Barrett's question to Sauer: "Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there's no way to do this expeditiously?" This points to the debate's focus on procedural fairness. Sauer's response indicated that while the general practice is to respect precedents, exceptions exist. He also admitted that Trump wouldn't necessarily respect all court decisions. The court's decision is expected in late June or early July and will have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. The potential for a more fragmented and less efficient legal system is a key concern stemming from the ongoing debate.