US Supreme Court justices engaged in a crucial debate regarding Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, a move with implications beyond immigration policy. The debate, centered around Trump’s executive order aiming to deny citizenship to babies born in the US to non-citizen or non-resident parents, directly challenges the 14th amendment guaranteeing citizenship to all born on American soil.

While Justice Sotomayor highlighted the order’s violation of legal precedents, the administration defended it as safeguarding American citizenship’s sanctity. However, the focus of the argument shifted towards the broader issue of whether lower courts should have the authority to halt presidential orders nationwide, potentially diminishing judicial checks on executive power.

Critics warn that limiting nationwide injunctions could lead to a fragmented citizenship system, with different rules applying in various states. The case has sparked concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles and the potential for unequal treatment based on birth location.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, expressed skepticism towards nationwide injunctions. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences, impacting not just immigration but also the balance of power between the branches of government. The ruling, expected by early July, will be closely watched for its implications on presidential authority and the rule of law.