The Supreme Court’s ruling today curtailing nationwide injunctions will have far-reaching consequences for President Donald Trump’s second term, even if his birthright order is never enforced.

All along, the issue of birthright citizenship was intertwined with Trump’s executive order in the court’s appeal. But the case also raised fundamental questions about the power of courts to pause the president’s agenda while they consider challenges to his policies.

The Supreme Court’s majority largely glossed over the issue of birthright citizenship, handing that off to lower courts to assess. What it focused on instead was eliminating a tool that both conservative and liberal groups have used to pause policies from presidents of both parties: the nationwide, or universal injunction. For Trump, this means his opponents will have to jump through additional hoops to try to shut down policies on a nationwide basis.

It won’t be impossible to do so, but it will prove more difficult.

The court was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was is required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy — and while the court didn’t directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in, for example, New Jersey — where that child would be a citizen — rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not.

And so, under the court’s opinion, states are likely to have easy time shutting down the birthright policy again.

But on other policies — from trade to other immigration enforcement issues — the Supreme Court’s decision may be beneficial to the president (and other future presidents) by making it harder for individuals to seek a temporary pause of a policy when they feel their rights have been violated.

In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday restricted lower courts’ nationwide pauses on Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, though it did not rule on the merits of the order itself.

Now, thanks to the court’s conservative supermajority, the undecidedly unconstitutional order may go into effect, in at least some states, come next month—a prospect that has left many wondering how the Trump administration would enforce it.

During a Trump press conference celebrating the ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked for some details on that matter but failed to clarify anything.

“Who would be tasked with actually vetting citizenship [under Trump’s policy]?” a reporter asked the attorney general. “Like, would this be a situation where you have nurses and doctors checking for citizenship of parents?”

Bondi offered a nonanswer, citing “pending litigation” and promising answers in October, when, she said, the Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of the executive order. (The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear another birthright citizenship case or announced its argument schedule for the fall.)

The reporter followed up, asking whether undocumented babies would “be an enforcement priority.”

Growing steely, Bondi replied, “The violent criminals in our country are the priority now.” That answer runs counter to ICE’s own records that, according to the Cato Institute, show the government is “primarily detaining individuals with no criminal convictions,” and that even deportees with convictions are “overwhelmingly” not violent offenders.

US top court hands Trump a victory

Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu

Reporting from Washington DC

For weeks, we have been waiting for one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the current term.

On the last day before the court paused for the summer, the opinion appeared.

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative majority curbed the powers of lower court judges to block President Donald Trump’s orders nationwide.

At the White House, Trump called the ruling a “monumental victory for the constitution”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from the liberal wing of the court, wrote the dissenting opinion. Sotomayor described it as an “open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution”.

The case stems from President Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The court’s ruling did not directly tackle the constitutionality of Trump’s order, and it will likely to end up before the top court at a later date.

We are pausing our live coverage, but you can read more analysis on the impact of today’s ruling for Trump’s power here.

From 2h ago 18.55 BST Trump says US will terminate trade talks with Canada over technology tax Trump has accused Canada of a “direct and blatant attack” on the US after being informed that the country plans to tax US technology companies. Trump says the US will be “terminating all discussions on trade with Canada” as a result. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country. They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.” Share Updated at 19.24 BST

29m ago 20.54 BST The day so far Donald Trump has abruptly cut off trade talks with Canada over its new digital services tax coming into effect on Monday that will impact US technology firms and said that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week.

Trump said he had not ruled out attacking Iran again and said he has abandoned plans to drop sanctions on Tehran.

The supreme court , in a 6-3 ruling, delivered Trump a major victory by ruling that individual district court judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions , which Trump has complained have blocked federal government policies nationwide including his executive order purporting to end the right to automatic birthright citizenship .

Speaking from the bench, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “a travesty for the rule of law” and “an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution” in a scathing dissent.

Trump called the ruling “a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions interfering with the normal functions of the executive branch”. He said his administration “can now promptly file to proceed” with policies that had been enjoined nationwide. One of these cases would be ending birthright citizenship , he says, “which now comes to the fore”.

US attorney general Pam Bondi said the birthright citizenship question will “most likely” be decided by the supreme court in October but said today’s ruling still “indirectly impacts every case in this country”, which the administration is “thrilled” about.

United Nations secretary-general António Guterres said that the US-backed Israeli aid operation in Gaza is “inherently unsafe”, giving a blunt and grave assessment: “It’s killing people.” Guterres said UN-led humanitarian efforts are being “strangled”, aid workers themselves are starving and Israel – as the occupying power – is required to agree to and facilitate aid deliveries into and throughout the Palestinian enclave.

Guterres’s intervention followed calls earlier today from Médecins Sans Frontières for the scheme to be immediately dismantled and for Israel to end its siege on Gaza, calling the Israeli-US food distribution scheme “slaughter masquerading as humanitarian aid”. Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on crowds heading toward desperately needed food, killing hundreds of starving Palestinian people in recent weeks. The Israeli military has launched an investigation into possible war crimes following growing evidence that troops have deliberately fired at Palestinian civilians gathering to receive aid in Gaza.

The Trump administration is planning to deport Kilmar Ábrego García for a second time, but does not plan to send him back to El Salvador , where he was wrongly deported in March, a lawyer for the administration told a judge yesterday. It is not clear when the deportation might occur or whether it would happen before the criminal case accusing him of smuggling migrants into the United States is complete. The justice department said there are no “imminent plans” to remove Ábrego García from the United States.

The supreme court ruled in favor of Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland who sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read in a landmark case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. The justices in a 6-3 ruling overturned a lower court’s refusal to require Montgomery County’s public schools to provide an option to opt out of these classes. Our story is here.

The supreme court also ruled against challengers to a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in an effort to protect minors after the adult entertainment industry argued that the measure violates the free speech rights of adults. Story here.

The supreme court also preserved a key element of the Obamacare law that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Read more here. Share

1h ago 20.15 BST Trump says he will set a new tariff rate for Canadian goods within next week As well as abruptly cutting off trade talks with Canada over its new tax that will impact US technology firms, Trump said that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,” he wrote on Truth Social. The move plunges US relations with its second-largest trading partner back into chaos after a period of relative calm – only last week Canadian prime minister Mark Carney said he had agreed with Trump that their two nations should try to wrap up a new economic and security deal within 30 days. Canada is the US’s second-largest trading partner after Mexico, buying $349.4bn of US goods last year and exporting $412.7bn to the US, according to US Census Bureau data. Share

1h ago 19.55 BST In Trump’s surprise announcement that he was terminating trade talks with Canada, he accused Ottawa of “copying the European Union” with an “egregious” digital services tax on US tech firms. He wrote on Truth Social: “They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.” We’ve yet to hear Canadian PM Mark Carney’s reaction to Trump’s outburst, which imperils a trading relationship that, according to the office of the US trade representative, totalled about $762bn last year. The tax, which will take effect on 30 June and be applied retroactively from 2022, will impact both domestic and international companies, meaning American giants Amazon, Google, Meta, Airbnb and Uber will have to start payments from Monday. Last week Ottawa refused to delay the tax in the face of mounting pressure and opposition from the Trump administration during trade negotiations. Share Updated at 20.16 BST

2h ago 19.42 BST Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again and drops sanctions relief plan At the press conference earlier, Donald Trump sharply criticized Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamenei’s first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the US launched strikes last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamenei said Iran “slapped America in the face” by launching a – largely symbolic and forewarned – attack against a major US base in Qatar following last weekend’s US bombing raid. He also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamenei’s life. US officials told Reuters on 15 June that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. In a Truth Social post, he said: His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life. I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He told reporters today he has now abandoned that effort. I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more. Trump said he did not rule out attacking Iran again. When asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point, he replied: Sure, without question, absolutely. Share Updated at 20.15 BST

2h ago 19.34 BST Trump border czar once again calls for prosecution of anyone who impedes immigration enforcement, including lawmakers Ankita Rao Trump’s border czar Tom Homan spoke at the end of the morning session at the Faith & Freedom Conference in Washington DC to applause and a standing ovation as he called for the prosecution of anyone who impeded his immigration enforcement, including lawmakers. Homan opened up by describing immigration enforcement as a moral duty – meant to stop the deaths, sexual assault and drug trafficking at the border. “In my 40 years I’ve seen a lot of terrible things,” he said. “Secure the border, save lives.” In a wide ranging, off the cuff speech, Homan touted his deportation figures and the lack of crossings at the border while defending Ice raids against non-criminals. “They’re in the country illegally so they’re on the table too,” he said. He attributed some of those arrests to sanctuary cities, where he said the lack of ability to arrest undocumented people in jail led to the increase of collateral arrests when Ice searched for them on the streets. Homan poked at protests, calling the Los Angeles protests misguided and misinformed and applauding Trump’s decision to deploy the national guard. He also called the protestors in his lake house town “morons” – those protests were followed by Ice releasing a family. Homan spent a good amount of his speech denouncing Biden’s policies and calling for the prosecution of anyone, including lawmakers who attempted to intervene with Ice enforcement. He said Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of the Department of Homeland Security under Joe Biden, should “go to jail”. You can hate Ice, you can hate me, I don’t give a shit. You can not agree with our priorities, but you better not cross that line. At the en,d Homan turned to his personal relationship with Trump, saying he respected the president as much as he does his own father. Share Updated at 20.17 BST

2h ago 19.18 BST Lawyers for Kilmar Ábrego García have asked the judge to keep him in jail over deportation concerns. Prosecutors have agreed with a request by Ábrego García’s lawyers to delay his Tennessee jail release. Ábrego García’s lawyers asked a judge for the delay Friday because of “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration over whether he’ll be deported upon release. A judge in Nashville has been preparing to release Ábrego García to await trial on human smuggling charges. The judge has been holding off over concerns immigration officials would try to deport him. The justice department says it intends to try Ábrego García on the smuggling charges. A justice department attorney said earlier there were plans to deport him but didn’t say when. The Maryland construction worker previously was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Share Updated at 19.24 BST

2h ago 19.06 BST US representative Nydia Velázquez from New York called the supreme court ruling that individual district court judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions “an attack on the very foundation of our nation”. She wrote on X: “The Supreme Court just opened the door for Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship. As Justice Sotomayor warned in her dissent, ‘No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.’ This ruling is an attack on the very foundation of our nation.” Representative Mark Takano of California expressed similar alarm. He wrote on X: “Today’s troubling ruling by the Supreme Court means that Trump’s un-Constitutional executive order denying many Americans their birthright citizenship will go into effect for anyone without the means to file a lawsuit to protect themselves.” Share

2h ago 18.55 BST Trump says US will terminate trade talks with Canada over technology tax Trump has accused Canada of a “direct and blatant attack” on the US after being informed that the country plans to tax US technology companies. Trump says the US will be “terminating all discussions on trade with Canada” as a result. Trump wrote on Truth Social: “We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country. They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.” Share Updated at 19.24 BST

3h ago 18.48 BST Environmental groups have filed a federal lawsuit to block the “Alligator Alcatraz” migrant detention center being built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades. The lawsuit, filed Friday on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Friends of the Everglades organization, seeks to halt the project until it undergoes a stringent environmental review as required by federal law. The lawsuit filed in Miami federal court says there is also supposed to be an opportunity for public comment. Florida governor Ron DeSantis said Friday on Fox and Friends that the detention center is set to begin processing people who entered the US illegally as soon as next week. Share

3h ago 18.34 BST Trump officials to terminate temporary protected status for 500,000 Haitians in US The Trump administration is moving to terminate Temporary Protected Status for half a million Haitians, claiming that Haiti is a “safe” country to return to, despite the reality that large portions of the country have been overcome by gangs and civil governance has collapsed. The Department of Homeland Security said on Friday that conditions in Haiti have improved, and Haitians no longer meet the conditions for Temporary Protected Status, which grants deportation protections and work permits to people from countries experiencing turmoil. “This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. “The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home.” Share Updated at 18.37 BST

A decision is expected by the end of June.

The justices heard arguments in the Trump administration’s emergency appeals over lower court orders that have kept the citizenship restrictions on hold across the country. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts to remake the government and a mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.

The Supreme Court seemed intent Thursday on keeping a block on President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders.

Would the Trump administration follow court rulings? — 1:56 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

An underlying issue that did seem to be on the minds of several of the justices was judicial authority and whether the Trump administration would follow it. At least six of them questioned Sauer on the authority of the courts, including their own.

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up

Justice Kavanaugh asked directly if the administration would follow an adverse ruling in the case while reading from government court filings on following Supreme Court precedents.

Advertisement

Sauer ran into another moment when he would not commit to respecting the decisions of a circuit court, saying administrations had generally followed rulings. Barrett responded tersely with: “really?”

Which way is the court leaning? — 1:42 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The Supreme Court seemed intent on keeping a block on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not immediately clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally.

Advertisement

New Jersey AG: It’s about the rule of law — 1:13 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Democratic attorneys general say the case before the court goes beyond birthright citizenship.

“It’s about whether the rule of law and … whether the president can act like a king,” said New Jersey attorney general Matthew Platkin.

He spoke outside the Supreme Court accompanied by other Democratic attorneys general who have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging Trump’s policies in court. The Supreme Court will determine whether the Trump administration can partially enforce the president’s order on birthright citizenship.

The court could also narrow the power of other federal judges to make decisions that affect the entire country and potentially restrain the states’ ability to score victories against the administration court.

When to expect a decision — 1:12 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

It’s not clear exactly when the justices will rule, but they’ll likely hand down a decision by the end of June.

Court is adjourned — 12:33 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The justices have heard each side’s arguments.

Corkran is done, and Sauer is now presenting his rebuttal — 12:27 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

After a short rebuttal from Sauer, arguments are now complete after more than two hours.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration now, how would that work? — 12:28 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Corkran argues it wouldn’t. The government hasn’t said how they would enforce the order against everyone except the handful of people who sued, much less how they would filter out parents who are part of the groups that have sued, she argued.

Even if there was a way, it would likely mean the government would be able to identify the women as non-citizens. That would put many at risk for potential deportation, she said.

Justices pepper Corkran with questions — 12:18 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Kavanaugh suggested that people who want to challenge the birthright citizenship order might not need nationwide injunctions.

Advertisement

Instead, they could bind together and file class-action lawsuits. “That seems to solve the issue for preliminary relief,” he said. Corkran pushes back. “That is not actually addressing the court’s emergency docket. It’s just now we’re slapping a label of class certification on it,” she said.

A series of questions from Alito at one point seemed to hint at the many other cases the Trump administration is now appealing to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Lower-court judges can be “vulnerable to an occupational disease,” of believing they can do whatever they want, he said.

Even if their decisions are wrong, he said, appeals courts can be reluctant to act quickly to block them. He seemed to suggest that includes his own colleagues on the Supreme Court.

“How do we deal with that practical problem?” he said.

Is this Supreme Court case about birthright citizenship? Yes and no. — 12:15 p.m. Link copied

By The New York Times

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Thursday in a challenge related to President Donald Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship, it will face an issue that sounds like a blockbuster: Can the president upend birthright citizenship, long held up as a bedrock of the United States?

But the legal question before the justices is actually much narrower.

For now, the justices have been asked to look only at the legality of the nationwide pauses, which are called national injunctions, that are blocking Trump’s executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants in the country illegally and some temporary foreign residents.

A case focused on the policy itself — whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires birthright citizenship for children born on American soil — could come later, but lawsuits challenging the policy are still at early stages in federal trial courts.

Advertisement

The constitutionality of Trump’s executive order may well come up, along with the practicality of allowing patchwork citizenship rules in different states should the justices decide that national injunctions are not allowed.

But the bulk of the argument Thursday from three lawyers — the U.S. solicitor general, D. John Sauer; the New Jersey solicitor general; and a lawyer arguing on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups and individuals — is expected to concern the legality of injunctions and whether a single federal judge can issue an order temporarily freezing a policy for the entire country.

READ MORE

The attorney representing pregnant women and immigrant groups presents their case — 12:04 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Corkran says every judge who has considered the issue has found Trump’s order is “blatantly unlawful” and asked the justices to block the effort to begin enforcing it.

The states wrap their case, and now another lawyer steps up — 12:02 p.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The states have finished their case. We’re now hearing from the attorney for pregnant women and immigrant-rights groups fighting Trump’s executive order. Kelsi Corkran is representing pregnant women and immigrant rights groups that say chaos will result if Trump’s order takes effect anywhere.

Coney Barrett raises question, suggesting a middle ground to the issue — 11:58 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Justice Coney Barrett asks Feigenbaum a question, probing whether there is some kind of middle ground: “Let’s say that I think that the states do need something broader in order to have complete relief, even if the universal injunction, is too broad,” she said. “Tell me practically what that would look like.”

What if they’re only citizens in New Jersey? — 11:53 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Feigenbaum described how the administration’s stance — that the birthright citizenship order should only be blocked in the places that sued — is unworkable.

Advertisement

He noted that people move to New Jersey from other states all the time. If they were born in a state where Trump’s order deprives them of citizenship and then move to New Jersey, they’d be eligible for benefits available to citizens but wouldn’t have been given the social security number required to access them.

Feigenbaum warned that never before in history has the country allowed “people’s citizenship to turn on and off” when you cross state lines.

Feigenbaum argues for using nationwide rulings, but sparingly — 11:36 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Feigenbaum says judges should be able to issue orders that affect the whole country, but only in narrow circumstances. Roberts jumps on that last point, asking him to elaborate on why they should only be used sparingly — a question that could be a clue as to how the chief justice is thinking about the issue.

What’s at stake in this case? — 11:33 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The justices are weighing whether judges have the authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions, effectively blocking an order from Trump from being carried out. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

New Jersey’s Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum is up — 11:28 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Feigenbaum is arguing on behalf of the states that say they’ll lose millions of dollars in benefits available to US children and also have to overhaul identification systems.

Justice Brown Jackson appears deeply skeptical — 11:26 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

“Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights,” she said to Sauer.

Advertisement

“I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law,” she added.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her first formal portrait for Supreme Court justices, in Washington, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. ERIN SCHAFF/NYT

Justice Kagan: ‘This is not a hypothetical’ — 11:18 a.m. Link copied

By Globe Staff

Kavanaugh presses Sauer for clearer answers on enacting Trump’s order — 11:14 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Justice Kavanaugh pressed Sauer with a series of questions about exactly how the federal government might enforce Trump’s order.

“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he said. Sauer said they wouldn’t necessarily do anything different, but the government might figure out ways to reject documentation with “the wrong designation of citizenship.”

Kavanaugh continued to press for clearer answers, pointing out that the executive order only gave the government about 30 days to develop a policy. “You think they can get it together in time?” he said.

The focus of today’s arguments is procedural, but Kagan notes effects could be major — 11:10 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Justice Kagan pointed out that district-court judges appointed by presidents of both parties have rejected the administration’s arguments on birthright citizenship.

But if the government wins on today’s arguments, it could still enforce the order against people who haven’t sued.

“All of those individuals are going to win. And the ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said.

Justice Alito questions whether reining in nationwide injunctions goes far enough — 10:53 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Justice Alito pointed out that multiple states have also sued over the birthright citizenship order and won broader victories.

The Trump administration is also arguing that states shouldn’t have been able to do that, but Sauer sticks to his point about the nationwide injunctions, saying they yield “all these sort of pathologies.”

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Coney Barrett picks up on Kagan’s questioning — 10:50 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

“General Sauer, are you really going to answer Kagan by saying there is no way to do this expeditiously?” Coney Barrett asks Sauer.

She pressed Sauer to say whether a class-action lawsuit could be another way for judges to issue a court order that could affect more people. He said the administration would likely push back on efforts of people to bind together for a class-action lawsuit, but that it would be another way for cases to move forward.

‘How long does it take?’ — 10:49 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Justice Elena Kagan cut to the heart of the case by asking Sauer that, if the court concludes Trump’s order is illegal, how the nation’s highest court could strike down the measure under the administration’s theory of courts’ limited power.

“Does every single person who is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?” Kagan asked. “How long does it take?”

Sauer tried to answer, but several of Kagan’s colleagues, along with the justice, jumped in to say they didn’t hear a clear way the court could swiftly ensure the government could not take unconstitutional action. Roberts tried to help by jumping in to note the high court has moved fast in the past, concluding the TikTok case in one month.

Gorsuch raises another question about birthright citizenship — 10:46 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

After a series of questions from Justices Brown Jackson and Coney Barrett about the possible implications of nationwide court orders more generally, Justice Gorsuch raises another question about birthright citizenship in particular: “What do you say to the suggestion in this case those patchwork problems for the government as well as for the plaintiffs justify broader relief?”

Sauer responds that it is a problem for the executive branch to deal with.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch poses for a new group portrait, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

What other Trump cases are before the high court? — 10:42 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda. Several of those relate to immigration. The justices are considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans.

Sotomayor presses Sauer — 10:33 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

A skeptical Justice Sotomayor quickly turns the arguments to birthright citizenship, specifically asking Sauer, “What are we buying into?” Sotomayor suggests Trump’s executive order violates four separate Supreme Court decisions on citizenship.

At one point during her questioning, Chief Justice Roberts jumped in to ask if he could hear the end of Sauer’s answer.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor listens during an event Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at Washington University in St. Louis. Jeff Roberson/Associated Press

Question before the Supreme Court could impact whether Trump’s executive orders can be enacted — 10:29 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Sauer begins by taking aim at decisions from lower courts that apply nationwide. He argued that they go beyond the courts’ authority and allow people who want to file lawsuits to go “judge shopping” for those they expect to agree. The decisions are often rushed, he said.

“This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administration,” he said.

Nationwide injunctions have become especially frustrating for the Trump administration, as opponents of the president’s policies file hundreds of lawsuits challenging his flurry of executive orders.

Arguments begin — 10:19 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Arguing first is D. John Sauer, the solicitor general and government’s top attorney before the Supreme Court. Sauer also served as a personal lawyer for now-President Donald Trump as he fought election interference charges filed in 2023. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that Trump and other former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Before that, Sauer served as Missouri’s solicitor general and a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer during his earlier tenure as a private attorney to Donald Trump in January 2024. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post

How long will arguments last? — 10:18 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The court has set aside an hour for arguments, but the session could last twice as long. Since returning to the courtroom following its closure for the coronavirus pandemic, the court operates under lenient rules about time.

Citizenship based on ‘right of soil’ and ‘right of blood’ — 10:16 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

In the US, birthright citizenship is broadly based on the concepts of jus soli – Latin for “right of the soil” – and jus sanguinis – “right of blood.”

The Trump administration is not challenging jus sanguinis, which grants citizenship to children whose parents are US nationals. But for years, Trump has spoken out against granting citizenship to nearly everyone born on US soil, calling it “this crazy policy” in a 2018 speech.

A decision should come relatively soon — 10:07 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The Supreme Court typically rules in all its argued cases by the end of June and this one shouldn’t be any different.

If anything, an order from the court might come quickly because the legal issue before the justices is not whether Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions are constitutional, but whether to grant the administration’s emergency appeals to narrow lower court orders against it while lawsuits proceed.

Three lawyers will present arguments to the court — 9:58 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Solicitor General D. John Sauer is representing the Trump administration in urging the court to allow Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect in at least 27 states.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum is arguing on behalf of the states that say they’ll lose millions of dollars in health and other benefits available to U.S. children and also have to overhaul identification systems since birth certificates will no longer serve as proof of citizenship. Kelsi Corkran is representing pregnant women and immigrant rights groups that say chaos will result if Trump’s order takes effect anywhere.

Trump presses for restrictions ahead of arguments — 9:50 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Trump is weighing in ahead of arguments in the birthright citizenship case today.

Trump says in an online post that granting citizenship to people born here, long seen as a constitutional promise, makes the country look “STUPID” and like “SUCKERS.”He incorrectly asserted the US is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship. While not every country grants it, about 30 other countries do, including Canada.

His executive order at the heart of today’s case aims to end birthright citizenship for children born to people in the US illegally, something many legal scholars say would require amending the Constitution.

President Trump smiles backdropped by an MQ-9 Reaper drone before addressing military personnel at the Al Udeid Air Base, Thursday, May 15, 2025, in Doha, Qatar. Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Protesters gather outside the court — 9:47 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

At the Supreme Court, two hours before the arguments were set to begin, small groups of protesters set up outside passing out literature. Some chanted: “deportation, we say no, Donald Trump has got to go” and “birthright citizenship belongs to us, we won’t go to the back of the bus.”

People hold banners and signs as they participate in a protest outside the Supreme Court over President Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington, D.C., on May 15, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Justice Clarence Thomas will ask the first question — 9:44 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Thomas was once known for saying nothing at arguments for years at a time because he said he relied on written briefs and thought his colleagues interrupted too much.

But when the court started hearing cases remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, the justices altered their practice and asked questions one by one, instead of the usual free-for-all. Even after they returned to the courtroom, the justices have informally agreed to allow Thomas, the longest-serving member of the court, to go first.

He has asked questions at every argument session he’s attended since the court’s first remote arguments in May 2020.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as US Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty

What are the arguments about? — 9:43 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The Supreme Court is taking up emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration asking to be able to enforce the executive order in most of the country, at least while lawsuits over the order proceed. The constitutionality of the order is not before the court just yet. Instead, the justices are looking at potentially limiting the authority of individual judges to issue rulings that apply throughout the United States. These are known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions.

Here’s what to know about the case.

Immigrants, rights groups and states sued almost immediately to challenge the executive order — 9:41 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

Federal judges have uniformly cast doubt on Trump’s reading of the Citizenship Clause. Three judges have blocked the order from taking effect anywhere in the US, including US District Judge John Coughenour.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said at a hearing in his Seattle courtroom.

The Supreme Court is hearing its first set of Trump-related arguments in the second Trump presidency — 9:30 a.m. Link copied

By the Associated Press

The case stems from the executive order Trump issued his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The executive order marks a major change to the provision of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to people born in the United States, with just a couple of exceptions.