Trump administration asks Supreme Court to roll back injunctions on executive order that ends birthright citizenship

03/18/2025 / By Laura Harris

The Trump administration has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to partially lift preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts against President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state blocked the order, arguing it violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil . The administration seeks to narrow the injunctions to apply only to specific plaintiffs, not nationwide.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the injunctions, allowing executive agencies to develop guidance on implementing the order. The administration claims universal injunctions hinder the enforcement of the executive order nationwide.
Judge John Coughenour, who presided over the Washington state case, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional,” emphasizing the clarity of the 14th Amendment’s protections.
Supporters, like Eric Ruark of Numbers USA, argue the order addresses a loophole in immigration law, advocating for stricter citizenship requirements, such as requiring at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or U.S. citizen.

The Trump administration has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to urge them to partially lift multiple preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts against President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in the United States.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that will exclude children of undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas, such as students, workers or tourists, from automatic citizenship. (Related: Trump seeks to end BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP when he returns to the White House next month.)

The order was set to take effect by Feb. 19 but federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state blocked it. They argued that the executive order sought to overturn a long-standing constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil since the ratification of American Immigration Polivy in 1868.

In line with this, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed a brief on March 13. Harris asked Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court to narrow two injunctions, issued by courts in Washington state and Maryland, so that they apply only to the specific plaintiffs in those cases. Harris also requested that the court fully stay a third injunction from Massachusetts.

“Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country,” Harris wrote. “While the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.”

Additionally, the administration asked the justices to allow executive agencies to proceed with developing guidance on how to implement the birthright citizenship order, which aims to redefine who qualifies for automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

“This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” her brief read, adding that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Ruark: It is necessary to address the loophole in U.S. immigration law

Trump’s executive order was based on the argument that individuals residing in the U.S. illegally or on a visa were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country and, as a result, should be excluded from the category of those entitled to birthright citizenship.

Judge John Coughenour, who presided over the birthright citizenship case in Washington state, characterized the president’s order as blatantly unconstitutional. “Having served on the bench for over 40 years, I cannot recall another case where the legal question at hand is as clear -cut as this one,” said Coughenour, a judge appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan .

Supporters of the move, including Eric Ruark of NumbersUSA, argue that it is necessary to address what they see as a loophole in U.S. immigration law. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” he said.

NumbersUSA supports policies that will reduce immigration, particularly by advocating for legislation that requires at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or U.S. citizen in order for their children to qualify for citizenship.

Head over to Trump.news for more stories about the president’s immigration policy.

Watch this clip from Next News Network about ending birthright citizenship.

This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to roll back injunctions on executive order that ends birthright citizenship

Ruark: It is necessary to address the loophole in U.S. immigration law

More related stories:

RECENT NEWS & ARTICLES