Think Immigration: Birthright Citizenship on the Brink: Takeaways from Trump v. CASA Oral Argument

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, and the Justices previewed their thoughts on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship in the United States. The Trump Administration is seeking to lift the nationwide injunctions blocking Executive Order 14160 (January 20, 2025) and allow the executive branch to rewrite how and if individuals born in the U.S. are deemed to be U.S. citizens.

Under current U.S. law, virtually everyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1868 to remedy the long-standing problem of the disenfranchisement of the former enslaved people who were born in the U.S. These peoples were freed during the U.S. Civil War but were not considered U.S. citizens under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

While insisting its arguments on the merits of EO 14160 are “compelling” and a victim of “snap” judicial judgments, the Administration insists it wants only to dissolve the three “universal” injunctions so the order can take effect everywhere but the plaintiffs’ ZIP codes. That procedural gambit would force every affected newborn to sue individually while the Executive enforces its rewrite of 150 years of settled law.

General Sauer’s One-Track Argument

Solicitor General D. John Sauer avoided the merits and argued history bars district judges from issuing relief that protects anyone beyond the named plaintiffs. Under his vision, even if EO 14160 is ultimately deemed unconstitutional, each child—or a Rule 23 class Sauer implicitly promised to resist—must litigate from scratch. He tethered himself to this argument even when told litigation might linger “four years” before the Supreme Court might reach it again.

A Bench Unimpressed

Several Justices—across ideological lines—pushed back hard:

• Justice Sotomayor repeatedly questioned General Sauer on his statements that the executive branch “generally” would follow circuit court precedents, implying that in certain circumstances the executive branch would refuse to follow circuit court decisions when they disagreed with them.
• Justice Kagan said Sauer’s plan “makes no sense” and asked why the Administration would ever bring the merits back to the Supreme Court when “you’re losing everywhere.”
• Justice Barrett pressed twice whether Sauer was really telling the Court there is *no* quick way to stop an unlawful nationwide policy. Sauer pointed to Rule 23 class actions but also simultaneously demonstrated how the government could effectively contest and delay class certification.
• Justice Jackson warned that his position turns the judiciary into a “Catch Me If You Can” game in which the Executive can ignore losing decisions outside a handful of districts.
• Even Justice Alito asked what practical good comes from forcing plaintiffs into serial class actions.

States and CASA Put Real-World Costs Front and Center

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum drove the point home: roughly 6,000 babies born out-of-state move to New Jersey each year. Without a single nationwide stay, state agencies would have to guess their citizenship for Medicaid, schools, and vital records—“unworkable” on day one. He offered the Court three “buckets” where broad relief is essential: (1) when piecemeal remedies cannot stop the harm, (2) where Congress authorizes system-wide relief, and (3) when no other tool will work.

Kelsi Corkran, representing CASA, reinforced the point: the order itself draws no line between the named plaintiffs and everyone else, so only an injunction that binds the government everywhere can provide complete relief.

History Meets Twenty-First-Century Governance

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch leaned on eighteenth-century equity practice, but Justice Sotomayor countered with a Second-Amendment hypothetical—could a judge really protect only the named gun owners if a President ordered nationwide confiscation? The exchange underscored the gap between antique procedure and modern executive power.

What Comes Next

Chief Justice Roberts floated whether the Court could “act expeditiously” on the merits, hinting at a compromise: tighten the doctrine around nationwide injunctions but leave these particular orders in place while the constitutional question is briefed. With Justices openly uneasy about “maternity ward chaos”—Justice Kavanaugh asked who tells maternity wards what to do if the injunctions disappear, and General Sauer offered only a vague 30-day “ramp-up” period—the votes to unleash Executive Order 14160 look short. A decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Bottom Line

The Administration came to curb what it calls judicial overreach. The Justices instead spent two hours confronting the chaos that would erupt without a nationwide bar. Sometimes the courts need a sledgehammer, not a scalpel; today’s argument showed why this might be one of those times.