Context:

President Trump is challenging the longstanding practice of birthright citizenship by bringing the issue to the Supreme Court, not on constitutional grounds, but to limit lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions. This case highlights Trump's dissatisfaction with universal injunctions, which have previously halted many of his administration's policies. While Trump officials are aware that the policy might not be upheld due to its apparent contradiction with the 14th Amendment and over a century of legal precedent, they aim to address broader judicial practices. The Supreme Court's decision could potentially reduce the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions, thereby allowing the administration to implement policies more swiftly. However, limiting these injunctions would present significant logistical and bureaucratic challenges, especially in determining citizenship status on a case-by-case basis, and could lead to a fragmented legal landscape across different states.

Dive Deeper:

• Trump's administration is pushing to end birthright citizenship, a policy that grants citizenship to anyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, by challenging the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

• Despite the policy's apparent unconstitutionality in light of the 14th Amendment and longstanding legal precedents, Trump is focusing on limiting judicial powers rather than directly addressing the constitutional validity of the policy.

• The administration argues that excessive use of universal injunctions has impeded its ability to enact policies, as Trump has faced more of these injunctions than any other president due to his numerous executive orders.

• Critics warn that removing or limiting nationwide injunctions could result in a fragmented legal system, where different states have different citizenship policies, creating confusion and logistical challenges for state and local governments.

• The debate over universal injunctions is contentious, with some justices and legal experts viewing them as necessary for equity and justice, while others see them as overreaches by lower courts that need to be curtailed.

• The Supreme Court's decision could set a significant precedent on the future use of universal injunctions, potentially allowing for more unilateral executive actions if the injunctions are limited or eliminated.

• The case also raises concerns about the practice of forum shopping, where litigants direct cases to favorable courts, which has been a point of contention in both Republican and Democratic administrations.