WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday in its first case stemming from the blitz of actions that have marked the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

Before the court are the Trump administration’s emergency appeals of lower court orders putting nationwide holds on the Republican president’s push to deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally.

Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president’s agenda.

The justices are also considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

In Thursday’s arguments, the justices will be weighing whether judges have the authority to issue what are called nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

Yet in discussing the limits of a judge’s power, the court almost certainly will have to take up the change to citizenship that Trump wants to make, which would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.”

The Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was included to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens. It effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter their status, were not citizens.

Since at least 1898 and the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the provision has been widely interpreted to make citizens of everyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; and, until a federal law changed things in 1924, sovereign Native American tribes.

Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories include people who are in the country illegally or temporarily because, the administration contends, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Almost immediately, states, immigrants and rights groups sued to block the executive order, accusing the Republican administration of trying to unsettle the understanding of birthright citizenship. Every court to consider the issue has sided with the challengers.

The administration is asking for the court orders to be reined in, not overturned entirely, and spends little time defending the executive order. The Justice Department argues that there has been an “explosion” in the number of nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House. The far-reaching court orders violate the law as well as long-standing views on a judge’s authority, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration.

Courts typically deal only with the parties before them. Even class actions reach only the people who are part of a class certified by a judge, though those can affect millions of people, Sauer wrote.

Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, have no limits and can even include parties who oppose what the court orders are designed to protect, he wrote. As an example, Sauer pointed to Republican-led states that favor the administration’s position but are subject to the nationwide injunctions.

But the justices may well ask about Trump’s executive order and perhaps even tip their hand.

Lawyers for the states and immigrants argue that this is an odd issue for the court to use to limit judges’ authority because courts have uniformly found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution. Limiting the number of people who are protected by the rulings would create a confusing patchwork of rules in which new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states. That means a child born in a state that is challenging Trump’s order would be a citizen, but a child born at the same time elsewhere would not, the lawyers said.

The Supreme Court almost always takes up the underlying substance of a dispute, not an emergency appeal of court orders issued early in a legal case.

The main argument against the court deciding too much on the emergency, or shadow, docket is that the justices are intervening too early in the process, sometimes before lower courts have had much to say or the legal arguments are fully developed.

Last year, the justices heard arguments in emergency appeals, then blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution-fighting “good neighbor” plan, which aimed to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.

Two years earlier, the court delivered a split decision that allowed rules requiring COVID-19 vaccines for health care workers but not for employees of large companies.

Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.