The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments today concerning the Trump administration's attempt to enforce an executive order ending birthright citizenship. The central issue before the Court is whether lower-court judges have the authority to issue universal injunctions that block such orders nationwide.
This legal battle, which has been consolidated from three cases — Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey — reached the justices as an emergency appeal last month.
Legal scholars from Northwestern University are available for media interviews regarding this case. Shanice Harris can be contacted at shanice.harris@northwestern.edu to arrange interviews with these experts:
Zach Clopton, a professor of law and associate dean at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, offers insights into the nuances of the case and its implications for the judicial branch.
Paul Gowder, another law professor at Northwestern, has been involved in discussions about the history of the 14th Amendment and focuses his research on rule of law and equality issues.
James Pfander, holding the Owen L. Coon Professorship of Law, specializes in universal injunctions and teaches about judicial systems' roles in constitutional democracies.
In a Q&A session with Professor Clopton, he explained that a universal injunction occurs when a court declares an executive policy illegal or unconstitutional, preventing its application to anyone. He noted that while organizations and states across the country sued over birthright citizenship, resulting in universal injunctions from lower courts, the Supreme Court is now considering whether such broad protections are appropriate.
Clopton clarified that while justices could discuss the constitutionality of Trump's executive order during hearings, their decision will focus on universal injunctions' appropriateness. He suggested potential outcomes where justices might either affirm or deny universal injunctions' validity in certain situations.
If universal injunctions are deemed inappropriate by SCOTUS, Clopton warned it could lead to significant challenges for those affected by such policies but not directly involved in lawsuits against them. He highlighted complications that could arise if individuals protected under state-filed lawsuits move between states.
Clopton also anticipates lawyers will reference United States v. Wong Kim Ark during proceedings—a landmark 1898 ruling upholding birthright citizenship—and address related concerns about the 14th Amendment's provisions on citizenship rights and equal protection under law.