A tense exchange between Supreme Court justices during oral arguments highlighted the contentious nature of Trump's birthright citizenship case.
According to Fox News, Chief Justice John Roberts intervened after Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly interrupted U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer during arguments over nationwide court injunctions and birthright citizenship on Thursday.
The incident occurred as Sotomayor dominated the questioning period following Justice Clarence Thomas's initial inquiries. She persistently challenged Sauer's arguments regarding federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The exchange grew particularly heated when Sotomayor pressed the administration's stance on executive powers and court precedents.
Sauer, representing the Trump administration, focused his opening arguments on the constitutional limitations of universal injunctions. He emphasized that such injunctions exceed lower courts' Article III powers under the Constitution and create significant practical challenges for the judicial system.
The case centers on three separate nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges against Trump's birthright citizenship order. The administration argues that while federal courts can intervene for specific plaintiffs, they shouldn't have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court's expedited review of the case demonstrates its significance, with a ruling potentially coming within weeks or even days.
Sotomayor strongly contested the administration's position during the hearing. She argued that Trump's order contradicted four Supreme Court precedents, making federal judicial intervention necessary.
U.S. Solicitor General Sauer presented the following response:
We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class only. Universal injunctions require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere, and invert the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review.
The case's outcome could significantly impact over 310 federal lawsuits challenging White House actions since Trump's second term began in January 2025.
The consolidated cases before the Supreme Court include Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. These cases collectively challenge the scope of federal courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions.
The administration's legal team maintains that universal injunctions create practical problems and exceed traditional bounds of equitable authority. They argue this approach forces the government to prevail in every jurisdiction to implement policies.
Legal experts suggest the Court's decision could reshape how lower courts handle challenges to executive orders and administrative actions.
Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in to maintain order during Thursday's Supreme Court hearing when Justice Sotomayor's persistent questioning of U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer threatened to derail the proceedings. The case, addressing Trump's birthright citizenship order and nationwide injunctions, combines three separate challenges from various states and organizations. As the Supreme Court deliberates this significant constitutional matter, their upcoming decision could fundamentally alter how federal courts approach nationwide injunctions and executive authority challenges.
