Staff Reports
The Trump administration is stepping up its game in the legal battle over birthright citizenship, asking the Supreme Court to hit the pause button on nationwide injunctions that lower court judges have thrown against the president’s plans. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has made it clear that the administration is tired of being thwarted by a handful of judges who think they can dictate national policy.
Recent court decisions have favored those looking to block the executive order, with one judge claiming it conflicts with the “plain language of the 14th Amendment” and other Supreme Court rulings. But those who voted for Trump likely see these interruptions as just another example of judicial overreach from activist judges who would rather wield the gavel than allow voters’ choices to stand. After all, when has a judge ever won an election?
The executive order, signed on Inauguration Day, proposes to fundamentally change the rules of citizenship by making it contingent upon parental immigration status. Simply put: if one parent is not a legal citizen, the child would not automatically receive citizenship. This is akin to the basketball analogy—no goal, no points. In the world of America’s birthright, it’s time to start enforcing the rules that are already on the books instead of handing out citizenship like candy during Halloween.
Trump admin asks Supreme Court to narrow injunctions against president's birthright citizenship plan https://t.co/Cac3P8yLut
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) March 13, 2025
Harris isn’t just packing the bags and heading to the Supreme Court willy-nilly; she filed three concurrent emergency applications and essentially argued for a little common sense. Her request is simple: if a group or individual wants to sue, then the injunction should only affect those plaintiffs, not the whole country. This is a call to sanity when faced with increasingly common “universal injunctions” that threaten to paralyze the executive branch’s ability to function effectively.
Despite requests for a more limited approach to injunctions, the administration cleverly sidestepped any conversation about the merits of the birthright citizenship plan itself. The implications are significant—if upheld, this could reshape the landscape of what it means to be an American citizen. This isn’t just a legal skirmish; it’s a fight over what America stands for, and who gets to belong. Buckle up—this legal showdown is far from over, and the outcome could change the game for immigration policy in the United States.
