Staff Reports
The Trump administration is making a bold move by asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the battle over birthright citizenship—an issue that has turned into an ideological tug-of-war. The Acting Solicitor General, Sarah M. Harris, is not seeking a ruling on the legality of Trump’s executive action just yet; instead, she’s requesting the Court to dial back the universal injunctions that have been pesky roadblocks thrown up by lower courts. These universal injunctions, which freeze presidential policies nationwide, have become a liberal judge’s favorite tool for thwarting the elected President’s agenda.
Three separate courts have slapped Trump’s birthright citizenship policy with universal injunctions, and Harris has come to the high court asking for some sanity in this judicial madness. She pointed out that district courts should have limited their injunctions to the parties that actually belong in those cases, instead of creating nationwide chaos. After all, it’s not the job of a single federal judge to throw a wrench in the gears of the executive branch’s policy-making machine.
As it stands, Trump has been vocal about wanting to redefine our nation’s approach to automatic citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. His stance? Babies born to illegal immigrant parents or temporary visa holders shouldn’t automatically receive U.S. citizenship. This has sparked legal battles, with opponents citing the 14th Amendment as their point of contention. However, Trump argues those babies aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction,” which is key to his case.
Interestingly, academic commentators have tossed around the idea that while Trump might have a point, legislating this change would require Congress stepping in—not issuing an executive order. This raises eyebrows—why does it take Congress so long to act on a topic that many Americans find urgent? Meanwhile, courts largely lining up against Trump have continuously kept his initiatives on hold, leading to some frustration in the executive branch.
Trump’s birthright citizenship case reaches Supreme Courthttps://t.co/WENXzDrsWM pic.twitter.com/FQomca9VB7
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) March 14, 2025
The underlying issue comes down to the power of universal injunctions and how they allow one judge to wield an extraordinary amount of influence over national policy. Critics of this practice argue it allows for judge shopping—where plaintiffs strategically pick courts known for their left-leaning tendencies. It’s as if there’s an unspoken competition to seek out friendly jurisdictions, which plays directly into the hands of a political agenda. Shouldn’t the courts be a place for impartial justice rather than an extension of partisan warfare?
The Supreme Court justices are increasingly vocal about their frustrations with universal injunctions. Past rulings have left deliberations feeling like they need a serious overhaul. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed their dissatisfaction with the fast-paced and often ill-informed decisions that come from such broad injunctions. Their desire to revert to a more structured judicial process is hardly a secret, and it seems likely that they are ready to tackle this contentious issue head-on.
As the judicial landscape continues to be shaped by both legislative inaction and activist judges, the spotlight remains on how the Supreme Court will choose to navigate this tempestuous terrain. With Trump pushing back against what he sees as judicial overreach, it appears this saga will only continue to unfold—much to the chagrin of those who wish the matter would just go away. The stakes are high, and so is the drama, making it clear that the battle over birthright citizenship is far from over.
