The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could redefine the limits of judicial power.
In early 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The move sparked an immediate legal backlash. In response, Washington state’s attorney general and three other states, sued the Trump administration, challenging the executive action.
“We do not have a king, we have a president who must abide by the laws,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. “If they want to amend the Constitution, there is a process by which to do that.”
At least four federal judges issued preliminary injunctions, putting the order on hold as the legal challenges advanced. But the Supreme Court isn’t weighing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship—at least not yet. Instead, the justices will consider whether federal judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions: temporary orders that block a policy from taking effect across the entire country, even beyond the parties involved in the case.
“Sometimes you do want nationwide injunctions,” said Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. “For example, if you have an immigration policy, you can’t have different standards applied depending on whether someone is flying into JFK or LAX. But there needs to be procedures in place.”
Shapiro noted the increasing concern that unelected judges are exercising outsized influence over national policy. “People are saying now that the most powerful office in the federal government is that of a district judge,” he said.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have described nationwide injunctions as “legally and historically dubious.”
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters to ensure you receive the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***
While critics call it judicial overreach, Mike Fox with the CATO Institute contends this is exactly what the courts are supposed to do. “The idea that courts can’t issue nationwide injunctions is just ridiculous,” Fox said. “If you say rulings can only apply to the parties or specific jurisdictions, you’re dramatically increasing litigation and creating inconsistencies. At the end of the day, the law is the law.”
Paul Larkin with The Heritage Foundation, however, believes these injunctions are a case of judicial overreach. “A nationwide injunction issued by one judge has the benefit of trying to resolve an issue quickly,” he said, “but that short-run initiative is greatly outweighed by the long-run benefit of getting it done, not quickly, but correctly.”
As justices hear oral arguments, legal experts are watching to see if the Supreme Court draws new limits on nationwide injunctions—or stands by them as a check on executive power. A ruling on the merits of birthright citizenship could come later, depending on how the legal challenges to Executive Order 14160 progress through the courts.
