Supreme Court wrestles with limits on Trump's executive orders
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
American flags are seen during a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Thursday seemed to want to rein in the spate of lower-court rulings that have frozen parts of President Trump's agenda, but struggled with the right way to do it.
The big picture: The justices heard oral arguments Thursday about whether to let Trump proceed with a plan to redefine birthright citizenship in the U.S. or leave that policy frozen while the courts hash out whether it's legal.
Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that aims to eliminate birthright citizenship for children who are born in the U.S. to parents who are not in the country legally.
- The policy rests on a novel legal theory that would upend a century-long understanding of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
- Multiple federal courts blocked Trump from implementing the new policy until the courts determine whether it's legal. Multiple appeals courts left those temporary freezes in place. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift them.
Zoom out: The justices weren't debating whether Trump's policy is constitutional, but rather whether a single district court should be able to freeze an entire federal policy.
- Those courts' rulings should only apply to the specific parties before them, the Justice Department argued.
- Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices that nationwide injunctions are a "bipartisan problem." Legal experts from both sides of the aisle have said they're getting out of hand.
What they're saying: Several of the court's conservative justices have expressed a desire to crack down on nationwide injunctions, but they wrestled Thursday with serious questions about the implications of letting Trump's citizenship order proceed.
- Liberal Justice Elena Kagan pressed Sauser on a hypothetical: What if the Supreme Court says lower courts cannot freeze the citizenship policy nationwide, but then ultimately rules that the policy is illegal?
- In the time it took for the court to issue a final ruling, thousands of children would be denied citizenship, and would not be citizens of any country, she noted. And what if the Trump administration simply never asked the court to rule on the merits, she asked. In that case there would be no way to set a clear national standard for who's a citizen.
Chief Justice John Roberts, sometimes a swing vote on the court, seemed unmoved by those concerns. But they seemed to resonate with some other conservatives.
- Ultimately, Thursday's questioning didn't provide an especially clear picture of how the court is likely to rule.
- That decision is expected by late June.
