The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case challenging the Trump administration’s effort to limit who gets birthright citizenship.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
At the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, the justices heard a case that challenges the constitutional provision guaranteeing automatic citizenship to all babies born in the United States, but the arguments focused on a separate question: can federal district court judges rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.
Several justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument that lower courts should not have the right to issue nationwide injunctions.
“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General John Sauer, the government’s lawyer, about the federal government would enforce Trump’s order.
Justice Brown Jackson was more pointed.
“Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights,” she said.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the 22 states suing the government, told the court that nationwide injunctions should be available in “narrow circumstances” — like this case involving birthright citizenship.
Kelsi Corkran, who represented pregnant women and immigrant rights groups in the case, suggested allowing nationwide injunctions only when the government action is deemed by plaintiffs to be…