Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving Birthright Citizenship Clause

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments relating to President Donald Trump’s attempts to rewrite the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution next month.

The court announced on Thursday that it would hear oral arguments on the matter in four weeks, on May 15 at 10 a.m.

The case is technically not about the Birthright Citizenship clause itself, but rather whether Trump’s executive order changing its meaning can go into effect while the order is pending review by lower courts, allowing the administration to carry out more deportations, including for people born in the U.S. whose parents were not. Three federal district judges placed nationwide injunctions on the Trump administration’s ability to enforce his order, deeming it blatantly unconstitutional.

The Trump administration is alleging that nationwide injunctions like these are inappropriate and illegal, and that judges shouldn’t be allowed to enjoin executive branch actions in such a broad manner, despite decades of precedent allowing them to do so. The Supreme Court could set an incredible new precedent if it rules in Trump’s favor, barring judges from issuing nationwide temporary restraining orders in this and other cases and letting the administration carry out what could be unconstitutional actions while the courts take months to decide on them.

Notably, although the administration is now challenging this judicial power, when such injunctions were placed on Democratic presidents in the past, many in Trump’s orbit celebrated them.

The Supreme Court could technically also decide on the birthright citizenship question if it chose to do so — however, given the scope of arguments made in the lower court cases and the likelihood of oral arguments focusing narrowly on the question of nationwide injunctions, the court is unlikely to do so.

The 14th Amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The court agreeing to hear the challenges by Trump means that at least four justices believed there was enough of an argument to consider the idea of disallowing nationwide injunctions, as four justices are needed to approve a writ of certiorari to hear a case. Aside from that, the order on Thursday left it unclear how the justices might rule on the matter, though some, like Justice Clarence Thomas, have indicated a desire to upend the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide temporary restraining orders.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who hasn’t indicated an opinion on the issue itself, has come to the defense of judges Trump has attacked after they have issued nationwide injunctions against his orders. Following Trump demanding the impeachment of a judge after one such order, Roberts took the unusual step of speaking out against the president’s words.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement last month. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”