During heated oral arguments Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sharply challenged the government’s defense of a Trump administration policy aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.

As reported by Fox News, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a pivotal case regarding the legality of nationwide injunctions and an executive order redefining who qualifies for U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

The case centers on a 2025 executive action issued by former President Donald Trump that alters the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. The order targets children born in the United States whose mothers are either undocumented or temporarily in the country and whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Currently, this directive is on hold due to nationwide injunctions from federal district courts.

Justice Kagan scrutinizes the administration’s legal defeats

Justice Kagan expressed strong skepticism toward the government’s argument, directly questioning U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about both the practical implications of the policy and the administration’s lack of legal success in previous challenges. Noting consistent judicial rulings against the executive order, Kagan emphasized that courts have universally rejected the administration’s position since the order was signed on April 2.

“Every court is ruling against you,” Kagan said during the proceedings, highlighting that the federal judiciary has shown clear reluctance to accept the administration’s interpretation of the Constitution.

She added that if she were in the government’s position, she would think twice before bringing the case to the high court. “If I were in your shoes, there's no way I'd approach the court with this case!” Kagan said, underscoring the weakness she perceives in the government’s arguments.

Court examines scope of judicial injunctions

The justices are hearing arguments not just on the constitutional issue of birthright citizenship but also on the broader policy question of whether lower courts should be able to block federal policies nationwide. The government contends that such national injunctions are an overreach of judicial authority and prevent legal issues from being examined in multiple jurisdictions.

The focus on injunctions is especially significant because more than 310 lawsuits have been filed against executive actions since Trump began his second term on January 20. If the Supreme Court limits the use of national injunctions, many of those legal challenges could be affected.

The government’s legal team argued that allowing district courts to issue sweeping injunctions frustrates the development of law and disrupts national policymaking. Justice Kagan, however, emphasized the practical effects of such a policy and how the existing court orders are already actively restraining the administration.

Origin and timeline of the disputed executive order

The dispute began on April 2, when then-President Trump signed the executive order modifying the 14th Amendment interpretation without Congressional involvement. The policy sought to change automatic citizenship laws that have been in place for over a century.

Within days, multiple district courts issued nationwide injunctions halting the implementation of the order. Those courts found that the administration’s rationale contradicted established constitutional protections for children born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship status.

In April, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case following requests from the Justice Department to remove the injunctions and permit enforcement of the order pending a final ruling.

Constitutional implications could be far-reaching

At the core of the Supreme Court battle is the clause within the 14th Amendment stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are U.S. citizens. The Trump administration’s reinterpretation excludes certain children born to parents lacking approved legal status or permanent residency.

Justice Kagan repeatedly returned to how the executive action departs from binding precedent. “This is not a hypothetical — this is happening out there,” she said, referencing the families affected and the legal disruptions the case has caused.

The decision, expected later this term, could effectively reshape the future of how citizenship is granted and influence how courts respond to executive actions in general, particularly those that face swift opposition from multiple jurisdictions.

Legal consensus favors birthright citizenship

So far, the Trump administration has faced a string of unfavorable decisions in lower courts on this issue. Those rulings reflect a consensus that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.

Justice Kagan was explicit in identifying this trend during Thursday’s hearing. She noted that the government has been “losing uniformly” on the central question of what birthright citizenship entails under the Constitution.

The justices will now consider not only the immediate future of the executive action but also the long-term limits that courts may place on federal authority, particularly when that authority conflicts with constitutional rights as interpreted by previous high court rulings.