<div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-0"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon requested responses from states and groups that have challenged the constitutionality of the <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">president’s order</a> ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The move is a signal that the justices will consider a request by the Trump administration asking the court to lift a nationwide pause on the policy as the underlying court challenges proceed. Should the justices side with the administration, the policy could go into effect in the 28 states, plus U.S. territories, that have not been named as challengers to the order.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The issue before the justices is the legality of a tool called a nationwide injunction, which enables a federal judge to temporarily freeze a policy across the country, rather than limiting a pause to the parties involved.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">In its applications to the court, the Trump administration pushed back on nationwide injunctions. The tool has been used during Democratic and Republican administrations, and <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/trump-judges.html" title="">a debate</a> over such injunctions has simmered for years.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div><div data-testid="Dropzone-1"></div><div class="css-s99gbd StoryBodyCompanionColumn" data-testid="companionColumn-1"><div class="css-53u6y8"><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The case arrived at the court as an emergency application, and it represents the first time the legal battle over the president’s order to end birthright citizenship has reached the justices. The court had the option of rejecting the application out of hand but instead ordered responses to be submitted by the afternoon of April 4.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">The birthright citizenship order, which was issued in the first few hours of President Trump’s return to the White House, spurred a series of legal challenges and sharp responses from federal courts. Judges <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/trump-birthright-citizenship.html" title="">in Maryland</a> and <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/us/federal-judge-trump-birthright-citizenship.html?searchResultPosition=1" title="">Washington State</a> have issued nationwide injunctions halting any action to carry out the directive, and <a class="css-yywogo" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/judge-new-hampshire-trump-birthright-citizenship-injunction.html?smid=url-share" title="">another in New Hampshire took similar action on Monday</a>.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">Mr. Trump’s order declared that citizenship would be denied to babies who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. That would include children born to people who crossed into the country without permission.</p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0">Even if the justices reject the Trump administration’s request to allow the policy to go into effect in parts of the country, the justices may ultimately consider the core of the case — whether the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship — after litigation has proceeded through the lower courts.</p></div><aside aria-label="companion column" class="css-ew4tgv"></aside></div>