By ABBIE VANSICKLE NYTimes News Service
Share this story

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court wrestled Thursday with the Trump administration’s complaints that federal judges have exceeded their authority by temporarily blocking some of his policy moves for the whole country.

Several of the justices appeared torn between two concerns: They appeared skeptical that single district judges should have the power to freeze executive actions throughout the country.

ADVERTISING

But they also seemed troubled by the legality — and consequences — of the executive order underlying the case: An order issued by President Donald Trump on his first day in office ending birthright citizenship, or the practice of granting automatic citizenship to all babies born in the United States.

Three lower federal judges said the order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well as long-standing precedent and blocked its implementation for the whole country. In an unusual move, the justices had agreed to hear oral arguments on whether those nationwide injunctions were too broad and should have applied only to the states, advocacy groups and individuals that had sued over the order.

The Trump administration had asked the justices to consider the legality of such injunctions, which have been a major impediment to Trump’s agenda. But the justices appeared to struggle with how the court could find a way to quickly weigh in on the legality of the order.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to articulate the views of several of the justices when she said that although many of them had “expressed frustration” about the way that lower courts were “doing their business,” the case before them was “very different” from the typical case.

The justices also signaled that they may try to find a middle ground, perhaps by issuing guidance that would allow such temporary blocks only for some kinds of cases or by requesting more briefing on the merits of the underlying executive order.

The court will probably not issue a decision until late June or early July, though the unusual nature of the case could prompt quicker action.

Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have said they are troubled by at least some nationwide injunctions, and several have long called for the court to address their scope. Both parties have relied on nationwide injunctions to curb the agenda of those in power.

The justices engaged less on the issue of birthright citizenship, focusing more on the legality of nationwide injunctions and the practical implications of litigating without them. In 1898, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of birthright citizenship in a landmark case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Judges have issued more than a dozen nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, including its effort to revoke temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, which allowed them to legally work and remain in the United States.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2025 The New York Times Company