Texas Border Business
Texas Border Business
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, a case examining the legality of Executive Order 14160, issued by President Donald Trump. The order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or individuals holding temporary visas. This case has drawn national attention for its potential impact on constitutional interpretation and immigration policy.
The justices began by focusing on the authority of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such sweeping measures exceed judicial limits and interfere with the separation of powers. Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about the confusion that could result from different courts issuing conflicting decisions on such a fundamental matter.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed for clarity on the executive order’s practical implications. He posed questions about how hospitals and state officials would determine a newborn’s citizenship status under the proposed changes. Sauer acknowledged that federal agencies would have to establish procedures, but he did not provide specifics, revealing uncertainty about how the policy would be implemented.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the legal and human consequences of the order. She warned that it could create a system where individuals must take legal action to assert their rights—a dynamic she described as a “catch-me-if-you-can” environment. Jackson pointed to the potential burden this would place on families and the judiciary.
Central to the legal debate was the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This historical precedent formed a key argument against the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June 2025. While the justices expressed skepticism about the executive order’s constitutional foundation, the ruling may focus more narrowly on the legal authority of courts to impose nationwide injunctions. The outcome will have broad implications for the interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and the balance of power among the branches of government.
For a more in-depth understanding, you can watch the full oral arguments here:
