People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by  President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Transgender rights opponents and a supporter rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don’t qualify as a protected class.

In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court’s finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court’s decision and sent it to the high court.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to “political whims.”

Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition.

In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 “warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.” But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex.

“Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex,” the ruling states.

The ruling says the application of the law “does not turn on sex,” either, because it doesn’t prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex.

The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, “This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America’s children.”

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from “irreversible medical procedures.”

“The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is ‘enough is enough,’” Johnson said in a statement.

The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: “We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Tennessee legislature’s anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.”

The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the law enforces “a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.”

The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve “impermissible stereotypes.” But if the law’s classifications aren’t covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn’t required unless the law is motivated by “invidious discriminatory purpose.”

“And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,” the ruling says.

In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters’ common sense won over “judicial activism” on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children.

“I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,” Skrmetti said.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference.

“This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,” Schumer said. “It’s an awful decision.”

Democrats, he said, are “going to explore every solution,” though he didn’t elaborate.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn’t extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination.

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling “devastating,” but despite the setback said transgender people still have health care options.

“The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,” Strangio said in a statement.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by the U.S. government. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland man who has now been returned to the United States, are pushing to keep his civil case open in pursuit of sanctions against the Trump administration for refusing to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

“Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over,” according to the brief by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed Sunday.

“The executive branch’s wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,” they wrote. “If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.”

The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss the civil suit filed in federal district court in Maryland, arguing it is moot after Abrego Garica landed in the U.S. to face criminal charges for “alien smuggling.”

A May 21 two-count Tennessee grand jury indictment, unsealed Friday, accused Abrego Garcia of conspiracy to unlawfully transport undocumented people for profit and the unlawful transportation of undocumented people between 2016 and 2025. The indictment also accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang.

His attorneys have disputed those charges.

Department of Justice lawyers also moved to deny Abrego Garcia bond, on the grounds that he is a flight risk and poses a danger to the community.

If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each undocumented person transported.

“Accordingly, the sentencing exposure for the defendant – given the number of undocumented aliens involved – goes well beyond the remainder of the defendant’s life,” Robert E. McGuire, acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, wrote.

Deported to CECOT

The civil suit was brought by Abrego Garcia’s family after he was arrested by immigration officials in March and swiftly put on a deportation plane to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, despite having protections against removal to his home country since 2019.

Abrego Garcia’s arrest in March was not due to any criminal charges, but he was informed his immigration status had changed. The Trump administration has admitted his initial deportation to the brutal CECOT prison was an “administrative error,” but has maintained Abrego Garcia was in the custody of El Salvador and could not be brought back.

Trump officials, including President Donald Trump, repeatedly said that Abrego Garica would not return to the U.S. and the president seemed upset with the news of his return on Friday.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said in a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night. “It’s a disaster.”

On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked El Salvador President Nayib Bukele after the Trump administration presented an arrest warrant for Abrego Garcia.

‘Determined stalling campaign’

The Trump administration argued that because Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. on Friday, the civil case is moot.

But his attorneys argue that Abrego Garcia was not brought back to Maryland due to court orders – even as high as the Supreme Court – but “rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions.”

“Two things are now crystal clear. First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,” according to the brief. “Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament.”

Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has handled the high-profile case since March, has granted Abrego Garcia’s attorneys until Wednesday to file their request for sanctions against the Trump administration.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said they want to push forward with discovery documents because they “are finally on the verge of securing answers from knowledgeable officials about what the Government actually did or did not do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.”

Abrego Garcia will be arraigned before a federal court in Nashville on Friday.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will allow the Trump administration to remove deportation protections for more than 500,000 nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who were given permission to temporarily remain and work in the United States by the Biden administration.

The move by the high court — which permits the deportations while a lawsuit continues to work its way through the courts — came after a district court in Massachusetts in April blocked the Trump administration from ending the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, or CHNV, program for 532,000 people.

It’s the second decision by the Supreme Court this month stripping immigrants of some form of temporary legal protections, affecting more than 800,000 people in the country without permanent legal status who are now subject to swift deportation.

On May 19, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted the protection from deportation because their home country was deemed too unstable to return to due to the political regime.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling.

“Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First,” she said in a statement.

Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration advocacy group FWD.us, said in a statement that the high court’s decision “penalizes half a million people for complying with our immigration laws.”

“This decision will have devastating and immediate consequences, and is part of a broader attempt by the executive branch to justify further immigration enforcement crackdowns against families across the country,” Schulte said. “The government failed to show any harm remotely comparable to that which will come from a half million people losing their jobs and becoming subject to deportation.” 

Friday’s case is one of several immigration-related emergency requests the Department of Justice has brought to the high court, as the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, wind down temporary legal pathways for immigrants and redefine the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.

No judicial review for parole, DOJ argues

In the emergency filing to the high court in Friday’s case, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the Immigration Nationality Act bars judicial review of discretionary decisions, such as what is called humanitarian parole, for the CHNV program.

He added that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated the program because it does not align with the interests of the Trump administration.

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. “It undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”

She argued that the Trump administration did not prove it would be harmed by the preliminary injunction. An appeals court previously rejected the government’s request to put the lower court’s order on hold.

“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties,” Jackson wrote.

President Joe Biden created the CHNV program in 2023. It temporarily granted work permits and allowed thousands of nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to remain in the country if they were sponsored by someone in the United States and passed a background check.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to terminate temporary protections for a group of 350,000 Venezuelans, striking down a lower court’s order that blocked the process.

The order still means the group of Venezuelans on Temporary Protected Status — a designation given to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. — will be able to continue to challenge in court the end of their work permits and the possibility of removal. But they no longer have protections from deportation. 

No justices signed onto the ruling, which is typical in cases brought before the high court on an emergency basis, but liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted she would have denied the request.

TPS status for that group of Venezuelans — a portion of Venezuelans living in the United States, not all of them — was set to end on April 7 under a move by the Trump administration.

But U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California in March blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate an extension of TPS protections that had been put in place by the Biden administration until October 2026.

The case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Trump administration from removing protections for that group of Venezuelans on the basis that Noem’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” and potentially motivated by racism.

“Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote in his order.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans, who came to the United States in 2023.

A second group of 250,000 Venezuelans who were granted TPS in 2021 will have their work and deportation protections expire in September. Chen’s order did not apply to the second group of Venezuelans.

Those with TPS have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the United States for 18 months, unless extended by the DHS secretary.

Democrats criticized Monday’s decision, including Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

“Ending protections for Venezuelans fleeing Maduro’s regime is cruel, short-sighted, and destabilizing,” he wrote on social media.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington state, wrote on social media that Venezuelans “face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and torture — the exact type of situation that requires our government to provide TPS.”

Monday’s order is one of several immigration-related emergency requests from the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.

Last week, the high court heard oral arguments that stemmed from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

And justices in a separate case, again, denied the Trump administration from resuming the deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, May 16, 2025, that the Trump administration's attempt to deport a group of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law "does not pass muster." (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday kept in place a block on the Trump administration’s efforts to deport 176 Venezuelans in Northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

A majority of the justices found that President Donald Trump’s administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelans when the administration tried to deport them from North Texas last month by invoking the 18th-century wartime law. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” according to the decision.

The justices did not determine the legality of the Trump administration using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans 14 and older with suspected ties to the gang Tren de Aragua.

On his social media platform, Trump expressed his disapproval of the ruling.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on Truth Social.

The justices found that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction,” and vacated that order, sending the case back.

The Trump administration on Monday asked the high court to remove the injunction, arguing that detaining suspected members of Tren de Aragua poses a threat to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff.

In a Wednesday response, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, warned that if the Supreme Court lifts its injunction, “most of the putative class members will be removed with little chance to seek judicial review.”

In Friday’s order, the justices noted that because the Trump administration has used the Alien Enemies Act to send migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, careful due process is needed.

“The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador…where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention,” according to the order, noting the wrongful deportation of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty,” the court continued.

Other rulings

On April 18, the ACLU made an emergency application to the high court, asking to bar any removals under the Alien Enemies Act in the Northern District of Texas over concerns that the Trump administration was not following due process.

Several federal judges elsewhere have blocked the use of the wartime law in their districts that cover Colorado, Southern Texas and Southern New York.

A federal judge in Western Pennsylvania Tuesday was the first to uphold the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, but said those accused must have at least three weeks to challenge their removal.

Hundreds gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, to protest the Trump administration's effort to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared split Thursday hearing a major case in which the Trump administration defended not only the president’s order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship but also its efforts to limit nationwide injunctions.

Though the dispute before the justices relates to the executive order on birthright citizenship that President Donald Trump signed on his Inauguration Day, the Trump administration is asking the high court to focus on the issue of preliminary injunctions granted by lower courts, rather than the constitutionality of the order.

It means that the Supreme Court could potentially limit the power of federal judges in district courts who curtail the president’s authority.

The Trump administration argues that a federal judge granting a nationwide injunction that blocks the federal government from carrying out its policy anywhere in the country is unconstitutional.

The justices had before them three cases with injunctions levied by judges on Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under the 14th Amendment, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Trump’s order, originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, said that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

The justices questioned the practicality of a system in which judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions and the logistics of instead having individuals file their own cases.

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that would create a chaotic system, and conservative justice Neil Gorsuch said it would produce a “patchwork” of suits and noted how long it takes for a class — a group of affected people — to be put together for a court case.

Nationwide injunctions have stymied Trump’s agenda, but were also frequent during the Joe Biden administration. However, Trump has lashed out at judges who have blocked his actions, which in March prompted a rare response from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts on the importance of an independent judiciary.

‘Stateless’ children

If the Supreme Court, dominated 6-3 by conservatives, decides that nationwide injunctions are not allowed in the birthright citizenship cases, it would temporarily create a patchwork of citizenship rules varying from state to state while the cases are litigated. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would create a class of stateless people.

“Thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless in some places because some of their parents’ homes don’t recognize children of their nationals unless those children are born in their countries,” she said.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, 255,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

40 injunctions since Jan. 20

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in his opening remarks, noted that since Trump took office in January, there have been 40 nationwide injunctions.

“Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party,” he said, referring to the Constitution. “They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and it creates a host of practical problems.”

Sauer touched on the merits of birthright citizenship, arguing that the 14th Amendment was only meant to grant citizenship to newly freed Black people, and not for immigrants in the country without legal authorization.

“The suggestion that our position on the merits is weak is profoundly mistaken,” Sauer said. “That kind of snap judgment on the merits that was presented in the lower courts is exactly the problem with the issue of racing to issue these nationwide injunctions.”

He said that the Trump administration would follow the high court’s ruling on birthright citizenship.

Sotomayor said that the Supreme Court has ruled four times to uphold birthright citizenship, starting in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled children born in the U.S. are citizens.

The justice that seemed most inclined to agree with Sauer’s argument was conservative Clarence Thomas, who noted the use of nationwide injunctions began in the 1960s and the U.S. has survived without them.

However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito criticized that district court judges “are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’”

Citizenship ‘turned on and off’

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states that sought an injunction against the birthright citizenship order, laid out how the patchwork of citizenship means that citizenship would be “turned on” and off depending on state lines.

“Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides, because the post-Civil War nation wrote into our Constitution that citizens of the United States and of the states would be one and the same without variation across state lines,” he said.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

Feigenbaum argued that the birthright citizenship case before the justices is the rare instance in which nationwide injunctions are needed because under a patchwork system, a burden would be created for states and local facilities such as hospitals where births occur.

“We genuinely don’t know how this could possibly work on the ground,” he said.

Kelsi Corkran, who argued on behalf of immigrant rights groups, said that the Trump order is “blatantly unlawful,” and that a nationwide injunction against the executive order was warranted.

“It is well settled that preliminary injunctions may benefit non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs or when warranted by extraordinary circumstances, both of which are true here,” she said.

Corkran is the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Lots of injunctions

The justices seemed frustrated with the frequent use of preliminary injunctions from the lower courts not only in the Trump administration, but others that occurred during the Biden administration.

Kagan noted that during the first Trump administration, suits were filed in the more liberal courts of California, and that during the Biden administration suits were filed in the more conservative courts in Texas.

“There is a big problem that is created by that mechanism,” Kagan said.

She added that it’s led to frequent emergency requests to the high court.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed, and called it a “bipartisan” issue that has occurred during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

While the justices seemed concerned about the frequent use of nationwide injunctions, they also seemed eager to address the merits of the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order that could potentially impact newborns.

Kavanaugh returned to the question of the logistics of birthright citizenship and how it would even be enforced.    

He pressed Sauer on how hospitals and local governments would implement the policy and if they would be burdened.

“What would states do with a newborn?” Kavanaugh asked, adding that the executive order requires a quick implementation within 30 days.

Sauer said that hospitals wouldn’t have to do anything differently because the executive order directs the federal government to “not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the (executive) order.”

Kavanaugh asked how the federal government would know who is subject to the order.

“The federal officials will have to figure that out,” Sauer said.

Any decision on the case will come before the Supreme Court’s July Fourth recess. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, will hear cases related to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Thursday are set to hear oral arguments in three cases stemming from the Trump administration’s attempt to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship — though the focus may be on the power of district court judges to issue orders with national effects.

It’s one of the first major legal fights of the Trump administration’s second term to reach the high court, and one of several immigration-related emergency requests to be considered.

The justices have before them three challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to focus instead on whether lower court judges can issue nationwide injunctions, rather than the constitutionality of the executive order. Such injunctions affect everyone in the country and not just those involved in the case or living in the court’s district.

It is up to the court alone to decide, though, what it wants to consider, and justices could also wade into the birthright citizenship question.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than a quarter of a million children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a new study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

The lawyers who will be making oral arguments in court are New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

In briefs, they argue that the Trump administration has not shown it will be harmed by the multiple district courts placing the executive order on hold.

On the core issue of birthright citizenship, in their briefs, they argue that the 14th Amendment “guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and cite Supreme Court cases that have upheld birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S.

Nine justices, three cases

The nine justices will hear arguments on whether lower courts erred in granting a nationwide pause on the policy that extended beyond the plaintiffs who initially filed the challenge.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who will argue on behalf of the Trump administration, has criticized the nationwide injunctions as impeding the executive branch’s authority. 

The Trump administration has contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, the Trump administration said, the injunctions should be limited to those who brought the challenges.

Wong Kim Ark case

On Trump’s Inauguration Day, he signed an executive order, which was originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

Birthright citizenship was adopted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, to establish citizenship for newly freed Black people. In 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court initially denied citizenship to Black people, whether they were free or enslaved.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, when the justices ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. are citizens.

In that case, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had a temporary legal authority to be in the country, such as a visa.

When Ark left the U.S. for a trip to China, on his return his citizenship was not recognized and he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

The high court eventually ruled that children born in the United States to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

In arguments in the lower courts on the current case, attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration argue that the Wong Kim Ark case was misinterpreted and pointed to a phrase in the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction.”

The Trump administration contends that phrase means that birthright citizenship only applies to children born to parents who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In their view, people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

Tribal sovereignty

Tribal law scholars have noted that the language pertaining to “jurisdiction of” stems from the idea of political alliance when it comes to tribal sovereignty.

It’s from another Supreme Court case involving the U.S. citizenship of American Indian citizens, which the Trump administration focuses on in its argument, citing Elk v. Wilkins in 1884.

In that case, the Supreme Court denied citizenship to John Elk, a Winnebago man living in Omaha, Nebraska, on the grounds that “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities.”

Torey Dolan, an assistant professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said the Trump administration’s reliance on Elk in its birthright citizenship executive order and the idea the political alliance of a parent would then transfer to a child is a misinterpretation.

“A lot of this reliance on Elk is really a distortion,” Dolan said. “I think the administration’s reliance is a stretch, at best, and a bastardization of the case, at worst.”

Dolan, an enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, said some Native Americans were excluded from citizenship in the 14th Amendment because during that time, Congress would specifically sign treaties with tribes and grant citizenship.

“That is consistent with a long history of Congress creating pathways to Indian citizenship,” she said.

After the justices hear arguments on Thursday, any decision is likely to come before the Supreme Court’s recess in early July. 

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at maximum security penitentiary CECOT, or Center for the Compulsory Housing of Terrorism, on April 4, 2025, in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador.. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to lift its own injunction placed last month in the Northern District of Texas to allow for the deportation of a group of Venezuelan nationals under an 18th-century wartime law.

In the Monday filing, the Trump administration stated that the 176 Venezuelans have alleged ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, and are therefore subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that detaining suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang poses a threat to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff.

She said that 23 migrants barricaded themselves in the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas. and “threatened to take hostages, and endangered officers.” Reuters sent a drone over the facility, and captured images of the detained men spelling out SOS with their bodies, over fears that they would be sent to El Salvador. 

The Trump administration has removed those subject to the Alien Enemies Act to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador.

The administration request stems from an April 18 emergency application from the American Civil Liberties Union that asked the high court to bar any removals under the Alien Enemies Act in the Northern District of Texas over concerns that the Trump administration was not following due process.

The justices, in a 7-2 ruling, ordered that while the lower case is before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, “the Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

Monday’s filing by Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that those Venezuelans subject to the proclamation must be deported because the migrants “have proven to be especially dangerous to maintain in prolonged detention.”

In a Wednesday response, the ACLU warned that if the Supreme Court lifts its injunction, “most of the putative class members will be removed with little chance to seek judicial review.”

“And under the government’s position, courts will lack authority to remedy unlawful removals to the CECOT Salvadoran prison, where individuals could be held incommunicado for the remainder of their lives,” according to the ACLU brief.

In a separate emergency filing that issued a nationwide injunction that barred the Trump administration from invoking the proclamation, the Supreme Court ruled that, for now, the Trump administration can continue to use the Alien Enemies Act.

But the justices unanimously ruled that those who are subject to the wartime law must be given proper due process as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Several federal judges have blocked the use of the wartime law in their districts that cover Colorado, Northern and Southern Texas and Southern New York.

A federal judge in Western Pennsylvania Tuesday was the first to uphold the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, but said those accused must have at least three weeks to challenge their removal.

In court documents, the Trump administration has noted that adequate time for someone to challenge an Alien Enemies Act designation is roughly 12 hours.