Why Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship may be a legal loser but still give the president a major boost

As the Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday on a major Donald Trump policy for the first time in his second term, the president could secure a significant win affecting many of the lawsuits against his administration out of a case that is otherwise widely seen as a legal loser.

As the Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday on a major Donald Trump policy for the first time in his second term, the president could secure a significant win affecting many of the lawsuits against his administration out of a case that is otherwise widely seen as a legal loser. Trump has taken his attempt to end birthright citizenship – the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to any child born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status – to the high court. But in doing so, Trump officials made an intentional decision not to ask the court to review the constitutionality of the policy, which appears to run afoul of the 14th Amendment and more than 120 years of court precedent. Instead, the Justice Department wants the justices to focus on the power of lower court judges generally to issue orders blocking presidential measures nationwide – a major pet peeve of Trump. “We are thrilled to get this issue before the justices,” a senior administration official told CNN. Trump has seen scores of nationwide orders – also called universal injunctions – halting his administration’s initiatives, including in cases challenging his funding freezes, anti-DEI directives, mass layoffs of federal employees, cuts to public health research funding and various immigration policies. While every president in the 21st century has faced multiple court injunctions, Trump has, by far, seen the most as he has signed a record number of executive orders in his few months in office. Trump’s opponents in the case argue that his willingness to push and exceed the limits of executive power are why universal injunctions are needed in some instances, while noting that rolling back the nationwide orders in this case would present extraordinarily daunting logistical hurdles. “This is a fraught time for the relationship between the courts and the Executive Branch,” several Democratic attorneys general said in a brief to the court. “The Government is aggressively issuing Executive Orders of dubious legality, evading or ignoring court orders and attacking the judiciary. This is no time for this Court to limit the few powers that the courts have to do Equity in our Nation.”