The high court will consider the administration’s request to limit nationwide injunctions blocking the policy’s implementation.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear the Trump administration’s request to allow its executive order restricting birthright citizenship to take partial effect while ongoing legal battles continue.

The case stems from lower court rulings in three states—Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts—where federal district judges issued injunctions blocking the order from taking effect nationwide. The administration, represented by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, has asked the justices to rein in the scope of those rulings, arguing that individual district courts should not have the authority to override executive actions at a national level.

The executive order, issued on Inauguration Day, aims to restrict automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. It was set to take effect 30 days after its signing but was halted by the court orders.

Rather than requesting the Supreme Court to directly uphold the executive order, the Trump administration is seeking a ruling that limits the lower courts’ injunctions to only their respective states. If granted, the order could still be implemented in states not covered by the legal challenge. The administration argues that the existing rulings impose “massive remedial foul” and exceed the courts’ authority.

The Washington Examiner reported that if the court sides with the White House, the policy could go into effect outside of Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts, significantly altering the enforcement of birthright citizenship.

The case raises significant constitutional questions surrounding the 14th Amendment, which states:

“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.”

Harris urged the justices to “correct the district court’s massive remedial foul,” according to SCOTUSBlog. The administration has cited previous criticism from Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, who have questioned the validity of nationwide injunctions, arguing they overstep judicial authority and interfere with executive enforcement.

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris wrote.

She has requested that the Supreme Court restrict the injunctions only to the individual plaintiffs in the three cases, the members of the organizations challenging the order, and—if the justices determine that states have legal standing—the residents of those states.

At the very least, Harris argued, the federal government should be allowed to take “internal steps to implement” the executive order while the litigation continues, even if the courts prevent its enforcement.

The Supreme Court has ordered responses from the states and advocacy groups challenging the executive order by April 4, after which it is expected to rule on the administration’s request.