Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship is set to be argued at the US Supreme Court, in a case that could help further his agenda on immigration and other issues. The court will hear arguments on Thursday about whether lower court judges can block presidential orders for the entire country. Trump moved to end birthright citizenship within hours of returning to the White House in January, signing an order that said children who are born in the US to undocumented immigrants are not citizens. Three federal judges stopped it from taking effect, part of a pattern of courts blocking Trump's executive orders. Trump contends they did not have the power to issue the nationwide injunctions. If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump, then he could continue his wide use of executive orders to make good on campaign promises without having to wait for congressional approval, with limited checks by the courts. It is unusual for the Supreme Court to hold a hearing in May, and there is no indication of when it may rule. Trump appointed three of the nine justices on the conservative-majority court in his first term. Many legal experts say the president does not have the power to end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Even if Trump wins the current case, then, he may still have to fight off other legal challenges. Specifically, the amendment stipulates that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens". In the executive order, Trump argued that the phrase "jurisdiction thereof" meant that automatic citizenship did not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, or people in the country temporarily. Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, issued nationwide — or universal — injunctions that blocked the order from being enforced. The injunctions, in turn, prompted the Trump administration to argue that the lower courts exceeded their powers. "Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration," the government said in a March court filing. "Members of this court have long recognised the need to settle the lawfulness of universal injunctions." Earlier this week, a justice department official told reporters that court injunctions "fundamentally thwart" Trump's ability to carry out his policy agenda, which the administration sees as a "direct attack" on the presidency. The case being heard in the Supreme Court stems from three separate lawsuits, both from immigration advocates and 22 US states. The Trump administration has asked the court to rules that the injunctions can only apply to those immigrants named in the case or to the plaintiff states - which would allow the government to at least partly carry out Trump's order even as legal battles continue. Nearly 40 different court injunctions have been filed since the beginning of the second Trump administration, according to the Justice Department. In a separate case, two lower courts blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a military transgender ban, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and let the policy be enforced. An end — even a partial one — of birthright citizenship could impact tens of thousands of children in the US, with one of the lawsuits arguing that it would "impose second-class status" on a generation of people who were born, and have only lived, in the US. Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that a potential end of birthright citizenship could force some of these children to become undocumented or even "stateless". "There's no guarantee that the countries where their parents are from would take them back," he said. "It would not even be clear where the government could deport them to." — BBC
