Washington, DC [US], April 18 (HBTV): The US Supreme Court will next month hear arguments on former President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for certain children born on American soil, Politico reported.

The Court will not immediately address the constitutional validity of Trump’s order. Instead, it will evaluate a more technical but potentially impactful issue: whether federal district judges have the authority to issue broad, nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies from being enforced across the country.

Three federal judges had previously issued nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration’s order, citing that it violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Amendment has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born on US soil.

In March, the Trump administration filed emergency appeals, arguing that district judges lack the authority to impose rulings that halt policies nationwide. The administration urged the courts to either lift or narrow the injunctions.

In an order issued on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a special oral argument on May 15 focused on the limits of judicial power regarding nationwide injunctions. The unusual scheduling of arguments on an emergency appeal signals that the justices are giving serious consideration to the administration’s claims.

If the Court rules in favour of the administration, it could allow the government to begin implementing its birthright citizenship policy in jurisdictions where the injunctions do not apply.

Trump’s executive order, announced on the first day of his second term, seeks to deny US citizenship to children born in the country to undocumented immigrants or those in the US on short-term visas.

Legal scholars argue that the policy contradicts both the clear language of the 14th Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent. The Amendment reads: ‘All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’

Nationwide injunctions have frequently disrupted Trump’s policy initiatives since he resumed office on January 20. His administration contends that judges should be limited to issuing injunctions only within their districts or to plaintiffs directly involved in the cases.

In its emergency appeal, the administration argued: ‘Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,’ Politico reported.

Proponents of nationwide injunctions, however, say they are necessary to provide uniform relief against government actions that are broadly unlawful.

(ANI)