When one judge blocks a president’s policies nationwide, alarm bells ring. Should a single judge wield this much power? Can they halt policies across the entire country after just a quick first look at whether they might be illegal? The Supreme Court now faces these critical questions.

In a lively session on May 15, 2025, filled with justices’ questions that at times interrupted the attorneys appearing before them, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the provision in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that says all children born in the United States are granted citizenship.

While the underlying lawsuit involves birthright citizenship, the immediate question before the court was about a legal tool called a “nationwide preliminary injunction.” This allows a single federal judge to temporarily halt presidential policies across the entire country — even before fully considering whether those policies are constitutional.

Three judges had stopped the president’s attempt to deny birthright citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States. It was the Trump administration’s appeal of those injunctions that was argued before the justices on May 15, with the administration asserting that “universal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” and that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue them.

The justices also grappled with a key question: How much should judges consider whether a policy is likely constitutional when deciding whether to issue these temporary blocks? The National Immigration Law Center, which supports the use of nationwide injunctions, wrote in its filing with the court that granting the administration’s request to bar such injunctions would “tie the hands of the judicial branch in the face of unlawful executive action.”

What exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?

Immediate, Irreparable Harm: Examining the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Case

When presidents try to make big changes through executive orders, they often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, can stop these policies across the entire country.

These court orders have increasingly become a political battleground, increasingly sought by both Republicans and Democrats to fight presidential policies they oppose.

Read the full article about the SCOTUS birthright citizenship case by Cassandra Burke Robertson at The 74.