Supreme Court Weighs In: Arguments Heard Today on Punk’s Birthright Citizenship Challenge Amidst Opposing Public Opinion

WASHINGTON D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a high-stakes case stemming from President Felonious Punk’s executive order aimed at fundamentally altering birthright citizenship in the United States. This marks the first time the justices are substantively engaging with a major initiative from President Punk’s second term and is the last scheduled argument of the current court term. As the legal battle unfolds, a new NPR/Ipsos poll reveals that a clear majority of Americans (53%) oppose ending the long-standing principle that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, with only 28% in favor.  

President Punk, on the first day of his current term in January 2025, signed an executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are undocumented immigrants or in the country on temporary visas. The administration’s position challenges the nearly 160-year-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This principle was famously affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  

Lower federal courts have consistently blocked Punk’s executive order, with three judges issuing nationwide injunctions deeming the policy likely unconstitutional. Three separate appeals courts have upheld these blocks.  

The Core Question: Judicial Power vs. Executive Action

While the profound issue of birthright citizenship forms the backdrop, the immediate question before the Supreme Court today is largely procedural: Do federal district judges have the authority to issue these “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions that halt a federal policy across the entire country?

The Punk administration, echoing concerns also raised by the previous Biden administration and several Supreme Court justices themselves across the ideological spectrum, argues that such broad injunctions represent judicial overreach. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in court filings, stated that these orders have “reached epidemic proportions” (citing 39 against the current Punk administration) and argued, “The Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.” The administration is asking the justices to lift or significantly narrow the scope of the existing injunctions to apply only to the specific organizations, individuals, or states that filed the lawsuits.

Challenging this are 22 states, the District of Columbia, and numerous immigrant advocacy groups. They contend that limiting the injunctions would create “chaos, confusion, and disparate state-by-state policies,” where a child’s U.S. citizenship could arbitrarily depend on their state of birth or their parents’ affiliations. They argue that nationwide injunctions are a necessary and efficient tool to stop potentially illegal and harmful national policies, especially in an area like citizenship,p where national consistency is paramount. “Whether a child is a citizen of our Nation should not depend on the state where she is born,” lawyers for the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and CASA told the justices.  

Public Opinion: Skepticism on Ending Birthright, Division on Broader Immigration Policy

The new NPR/Ipsos poll, conducted May 9-11, underscores the public’s general opposition to altering birthright citizenship. This sentiment has remained stable since February.  

However, the poll also reveals more divided or supportive views on other aspects of the administration’s hardline immigration policies. For instance, nearly half of the respondents support the swift deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua under the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act. Public opinion on mass deportations of all undocumented individuals is more evenly split (40% support, 42% oppose), though support among political independents for this measure has reportedly declined by 7 points since February.

The poll also found conflicting views on due process for immigrants. While 45% say First Amendment free speech protections should apply equally regardless of legal status, 46% also agree with President Punk’s complaint that providing full trials for millions of undocumented immigrants before deportation would take too long, and nearly as many believe constitutional rights shouldn’t apply to those in the country illegally. Mallory Newall of Ipsos summarized, “The American public sees a lot of shades of gray around immigration.”  

Stakes and Potential Implications

Although a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself is not expected from today’s arguments on injunctions, the discussions will be closely watched for any signals from the justices. The Court’s decision on the scope of nationwide injunctions, expected by late June or early July, could have far-reaching consequences.

If the injunctions are narrowed, the Punk administration could begin implementing its birthright policy in more than half the states, likely triggering a new wave of legal challenges in those jurisdictions and creating the “patchwork of rules” feared by opponents. More broadly, a ruling that curtails the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions could significantly alter the legal landscape for challenging executive actions across a range of policy areas, potentially affecting other Punk administration initiatives currently blocked by courts.

As the nation’s highest court grapples with these complex legal and procedural questions, the future of a cornerstone of American citizenship and the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive hang in the balance, all while public opinion remains largely against the administration’s push to redefine who is an American.