Birthright Citizenship Reaches The Supreme Court

Summary

Summary of "Birthright Citizenship Reaches The Supreme Court" – The Daily by The New York Times

Episode Title: Birthright Citizenship Reaches The Supreme Court
Host: Michael Barbaro
Release Date: May 16, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Daily, host Michael Barbaro delves into the landmark Supreme Court case addressing the Trump administration's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship. The discussion features insights from Adam Liptak, a legal commentator, and John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States. The episode explores the legal strategies employed by the administration, the controversial use of nationwide injunctions, and the broader implications for presidential power and the judicial system.

---

Legal Background

The Trump Administration's Executive Order

President Trump issued an executive order aiming to revoke the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship—the principle that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. This move sparked immediate legal challenges, resulting in three federal district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions declaring the order unconstitutional.

John Sauer (02:25): "They immediately shut it down."

Nationwide Injunctions Controversy

Nationwide injunctions have been widely criticized for overstepping the authority of individual federal judges by imposing rulings that affect the entire country, bypassing the traditional appellate process. The Trump administration contended that these injunctions are a "pernicious problem" and sought to limit their application.

John Sauer (04:28): "It's odd that the president of the United States should try to do something and a single federal judge at the lowest level of the federal judiciary... should make a decision for the entire nation."

---

Supreme Court Arguments

Solicitor General's Maximalist Position

John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued before the Supreme Court that nationwide injunctions exceed judicial power as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution, which traditionally addresses injuries to the complaining party alone. He labeled nationwide injunctions as a "menace" and a "terrible intrusion into executive power."

Solicitor General (06:13): "Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3... They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority."

Justices' Responses and Critiques

Justices expressed skepticism towards the administration's legal maneuvers. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the administration's position on birthright citizenship, highlighting its violation of established Supreme Court precedents.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (08:47): "The President is violating not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents."

She also posed a hypothetical scenario to underscore the dangers of weakening judicial oversight:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (09:18): "So when a new president orders that... I have the right to take away the guns from everyone... we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every plaintiff... comes into court."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed concerns about the administration's litigation strategy, describing it as turning the justice system into a "catch me if you can" regime.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (13:20): "Seems to turn our justice system... into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive."

Defense of Nationwide Injunctions

On the opposing side, Jeremy Feigenbaum, Solicitor General of New Jersey, defended the necessity of nationwide injunctions in this case to provide uniform relief across states. He highlighted the administrative chaos that would ensue without such injunctions, using New Jersey's challenges in verifying citizenship status of newborns as a primary example.

Jeremy Feigenbaum (20:58): "But he said in this case, but it was needed here, it's really warranted... particularly because states are suing and if they are going to get effective relief from a court, it needs to be nationwide."

---

Justices' Deliberations and Potential Outcomes

The justices appeared divided on the issue. While some favored limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions, others, like Justice Gorsuch, remained eager to address the merits of the case directly. The Supreme Court's reluctance to hear the case on its merits suggests a preference for maintaining judicial restraint and upholding traditional appellate processes.

John Sauer (26:00): "I think the court will find a way to say that this particular injunction is okay... but there's at least a 20% chance that they wake up and say... we have to get to the constitutional issue somehow."

Possible Supreme Court Rulings

Adam Liptak and John Sauer speculate that the Court might uphold the specific injunction in this case while expressing general disapproval of nationwide injunctions. There is also a possibility that the Court could prompt a more comprehensive review of the constitutional issues surrounding birthright citizenship in the future.

John Sauer (26:52): "I think there's a chance that... we really can't do this by half measures. We have to get to the constitutional issue somehow... but in the end, the court can do what it likes."

---

Implications for Presidential Power and the Judiciary

A ruling that disfavors nationwide injunctions could inadvertently grant the Executive Branch more unchecked power, as it would reduce judicial barriers to implementing executive orders that might otherwise face legal challenges. Conversely, upholding the injunction reaffirms the judiciary's role in checking executive actions that contravene constitutional principles.

John Sauer (28:18): "If in general, the court starts to disfavor those injunctions, then this presidency grows even more powerful than it already is."

The episode underscores the delicate balance of power between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary, highlighting the ongoing tension over the scope of judicial intervention in executive decisions.

---

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's deliberation on the Trump administration's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship marks a pivotal moment in U.S. constitutional law. The outcome will not only determine the future of birthright citizenship but also set precedents regarding the use of nationwide injunctions and the extent of presidential authority. As the justices navigate these complex legal and constitutional questions, the nation watches closely, aware that the decisions made in the courtroom will have profound and lasting impacts on American governance and society.

---

Notable Quotes:

• John Sauer (04:28): "It's odd that the president of the United States should try to do something and a single federal judge at the lowest level of the federal judiciary... should make a decision for the entire nation."

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor (08:47): "The President is violating not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents."

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (13:20): "Seems to turn our justice system... into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive."

• Jeremy Feigenbaum (20:58): "But he said in this case, but it was needed here, it's really warranted... particularly because states are suing and if they are going to get effective relief from a court, it needs to be nationwide."

---

This comprehensive summary captures the essence of the episode, providing listeners and readers with a clear understanding of the complex legal battle over birthright citizenship and its broader implications for American democracy.

Transcript

[Capital One Ad]

Brought to you by the Capital One Savor Card. With Savor, you earn unlimited 3% cash back on dining, entertainment and at grocery stores. That's unlimited cash back on ordering takeout from home or unlimited cash back on tickets to concerts and games. So grab a bite, grab a seat and earn unlimited 3% cash back with the saver card. Capital One. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See capitalone.com for details.

[Michael Barbaro]

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Balbaro. This is the Daily On Thursday, the Trump administration's effort to abolish birthright citizenship finally ended up in front of the Supreme Court today. My colleague Adam Liptak on the White House's unusual legal strategy for defending its plan and what it may mean for the future of presidential power. It's Friday, May 16th.

[Adam Liptak]

Adam, always a distinct pleasure to have you on the show.

[John Sauer]

It's always good to be with you, Michael.

[Adam Liptak]

Let's talk about this case that was argued on Thursday before the Supreme Court. It's genuinely intriguing because it's not directly about pro President Trump's history making decision to try to outlaw birthright citizenship, but it's not not about his effort to ban birthright citizenship.

[John Sauer]

So just explain that it's really about a threshold question. Three different federal district court judges have taken a look at the order that President Trump signed the day he took office purporting to do away with birthright citizenship. That is the constitutional concept that if you're born in the United States, you're automatically a citizen. And they found that that executive order was unconstitutional. They issued an injunction saying so. And all three of the injunctions did not only say to the parties in the case that they win and they get the benefit of the court's ruling, these judges did more. They issued nationwide injunctions. They said the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional everywhere in the country.

[Adam Liptak]

They immediately shut it down.

[John Sauer]

Right. And the administration had a choice. It could have gone to the Supreme Court on the merits on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order, the attempt to ban it. But they did something different. They went to the court and said, we're ready to concede that the plaintiffs in the case, including 22 states, win and the birthright citizenship order doesn't apply to them and people in their states. But we think nationwide injunctions are bad, a pernicious problem. We've been facing a barrage of them, they say, and it's true. And the Trump administration is asking the court to lay down a rule that says you can't bind everyone in the country. You can only bind the parties before you.

[Adam Liptak]

Well, before we get to the White House's effort to undercut nationwide injunctions, which seems very central to this case, I want to make sure we establish why the Trump White House would make the kind of concession you just described to 22 states where this was blocked and not try to defend banning birthright citizenship on the merits. Why did they so quickly bypass that option, do you think?

[John Sauer]

I have what is only speculation, Michael, but I think this is what lawyers call client management, that President Trump expected his lawyers to go to the Supreme Court. And in order to appease him, they went up on an issue they thought they could win nationwide injunctions, which have been criticized by many of the justices and not on an issue that they probably thought they were sure to lose, which is the almost universal consensus that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

[Adam Liptak]

So onto this question of injunctions, nationwide injunctions, why have they, Adam, been so widely criticized?

[John Sauer]

I think a lot of people think it's odd that the president of the United States should try to do something and a single federal judge at the lowest level of the federal judiciary, one of hundreds of such people, should make a decision for the entire nation that could remain in place for years while the case gets litigated up to the Supreme Court. And then also a second reason. All you need to do is win once. And litigants are likely to sue in parts of the country, Massachusetts, San Francisco, where judges are apt to be sympathetic to challenges the Trump administration programs and initiatives. But the critique of nationwide injunctions is widespread. It's not particularly ideological. The Biden administration was not happy about them either.

[Adam Liptak]

Right. Okay. So, Adam, take us into the courtroom as the lawyer for the Trump administration makes the argument that these widely criticized injunctions should basically go away. And in so doing, allowance President Trump's efforts to outlaw birthright citizenship to remain largely in place.

[Solicitor General]

We will hear argument this Morning in case 24A884, Trump v. CASA Incorporated, and the consolidated cases. General Sauer, Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court.

[John Sauer]

So D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States, the Justice Department official in charge of arguing before the Supreme Court, and who was also President Trump's personal lawyer in the immunity case last year, makes a maximalist argument.

[Solicitor General]

Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems.

[John Sauer]

He really says federal judges have no business issuing what he calls universal injunctions. A lot of people call them nationwide injunctions. They're the same thing. And he says there's no constitutional or historical support for them. They're a menace. They are a terrible intrusion into executive power.

[Solicitor General]

They create what Justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head on confrontations between the life tenured and representative branches of government. And they disrupt the Constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers.

[John Sauer]

And he suggests that if somebody's going to lay down a nationwide rule, it ought to be the Supreme Court and not one of many hundreds of federal district court judges.

[Adam Liptak]

And as he's making this legal case against injunctions, what is the lawyer for the White House really asking justices to do here? I mean, what world does he want to exist if the Supreme Court does away with these injunctions?

[John Sauer]

So as a general matter, he thinks what should happen is what usually happens. I mean, nationwide injunctions are an exception. What usually happens is a lower court will rule in a case and the people suing will win or lose. The losing party will appeal to an appeals court. A year will pass. The appeals court will rule. It'll go to the Supreme Court eventually.

[Adam Liptak]

Right.

[John Sauer]

And I think he's basically trying to get the court to come up with a world in which it takes a long time for a challenge to, you know, a major change like birthright citizenship to reach the court and get a final ruling. And in the meantime, the challenged program remains in place for just about everybody.

[Adam Liptak]

Got it right. He wants a world where there's greater judicial restraint and deference to the executive when they propose something like this. So what do the justices have to say to that argument?

[John Sauer]

So Justice Sonia Sotomayor, first of all, before she starts talking about nationwide injunctions, wants to make clear that the administration's position on birthright citizenship is, is, in her view, way wrong.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

The President is violating not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents.

[John Sauer]

And then she goes on to say now talking about nationwide injunctions, that it would be an odd thing for the administration to get to say whatever it wants and have only very limited and slow and deliberate judicial review. She says, for instance, what about a future president who hated guns?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

So when a new president orders that because there's so much gun violence going on in the country, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns, we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court.

[John Sauer]

And years later, that would reach the Supreme Court. And maybe he wins, maybe he loses, but in the meantime, everyone has their guns taken away. Would that be okay?

[Adam Liptak]

And what does he say to that?

[John Sauer]

He falls back on two things. One, that there may be another mechanism, like a class action to deal with.

[Solicitor General]

It in appropriate cases. Courts have certified class actions on an emergency basis. We found at least four cases in recent years where that was done.

[John Sauer]

Another is that it is possible to get to the court pretty fast on the merits.

[Solicitor General]

We've been able to move much more.

[John Sauer]

Expedition seditiously, and Chief Justice Roberts, for instance, said, we took care of the TikTok case in a month. But a problem with this is that the losing side needs to appeal. And here the government is losing in the birthright citizenship cases, you know, routinely, profoundly, comprehensively, and yet they're not appealing to the Supreme Court.

[Adam Liptak]

Got it. So the justices start to identify a little bit of a contradiction or I guess, a judicial problem here, which is that the White House has shown no desire to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court while they're asking for the quickest remedy in the lower courts to be invalidated.

[John Sauer]

Right. And then Sauer gets himself into a little bit of trouble. He says, well, when it gets to the Supreme Court, of course the Supreme Court will lay down a national ruling, and we will abide by it. And I think Justice Kagan asked him, well, what about a federal appeals court? You know, a federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over 3, 5, 6 states? What if they rule against you? Will you follow their ruling, at least in those states?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

So, you know, let's say that we're an individual person, even let's say it wasn't a class, and goes up and gets a ruling from the second Circuit that the EO is illegal, does the government commit to not applying its EO in the entire second Circuit, or does it say, no, we can continue to apply the rule? As to everybody else in the second Circuit, I can't say.

[Solicitor General]

As to this individual case generally, our practice is to respect circuit precedent within the circuit. But there are.

[John Sauer]

And he says generally we would generally. And then there's a lot of what is this generally stuff?

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

Yes, that is generally your practice. And I'm asking whether it would be your practice in this case.

[Solicitor General]

I can't answer because it would depend on what the lower court decision said.

[John Sauer]

And he doesn't back down. Federal circuit courts, he says, are only generally able to tell the administration what to do. And it's one thing to say that a single federal trial judge is overreached. It's another to say, and repeatedly under pressure, that even a federal appeals court ruling is one the administration will only generally follow.

[Adam Liptak]

So why do you think he said it?

[John Sauer]

I really don't know. I don't think it's the smart litigation strategy.

[Adam Liptak]

But was it a candid channeling of the president's view of this?

[John Sauer]

Yeah, I mean, it's consistent with the President saying that he respects the Supreme Court, he will follow what the Supreme Court says, but otherwise, judges who rule against him should be impeached because they're wild radicals. So it's a surfacing at the Supreme Court and through a sophisticated lawyer of the administration's very testy relationship with the federal judiciary.

[Solicitor General]

That is the.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

I understand.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Let me just turn your attention to.

[John Sauer]

One other thing, and this is of a piece, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says, with the administration's general litigation strategy of trying to avoid judicial review by clever legal maneuvers rather than going into court and arguing on the merits and saying, you know, we think we're right, but if we're wrong, tell us your argument.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Seems to turn our justice system, in my view, at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights.

[John Sauer]

Rather, the administration has resorted to clever mechanisms like this one, like appealing only half of this case.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

And I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.

[John Sauer]

And that is frustrating not only to Justice Jackson, but seemingly to some conservative members of the court, like Justice Gorsuch has been harshly critical of nationwide injunctions. He seems unhappy and repeatedly says, well, how can we get the merits issue before us? How do you suggest we reach this case on the merits, expeditiously? There is a number of tools, and the suggestion is if we could just reach the underlying question, the core question of is birthright citizenship in the Constitution or not, all of this would go away. But they're facing instead an administration that is pursuing litigation strategies that may be too clever by half.

[Adam Liptak]

Adam, it's around this time that Justice Kagan weighs in with a very firm theory about why she thinks the President will not ever bring this case based on the merits to the legal system, which is basically, she thinks they have no shot of winning.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will why would you ever take this case to us?

[John Sauer]

Right? I mean, she says, you keep losing and losing, and if you appeal, you'll lose some more, and if you appeal to us, you'll lose if you. And that's why you're not appealing.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

The real brunt of my question is, in a case like this, the government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court because it's not really losing anything. It's losing a lot of individual cases which still allow it to enforce its CEO against the vast majority of people to whom it applies.

[Adam Liptak]

And again, so what the justices are starting to discern is that the White House is gonna do everything in its power to never have the high court issue a firm final ruling on. On its efforts to end birthright citizenship. And although they have taken this case, this side door case, they're expressing some real frustration with that fear.

[John Sauer]

They sure are. And it's a little bit surprising because going into the argument, one thing we knew is that many of the justices were deeply skeptical of nationwide injunctions issued by individual federal judges. And so you might have thought the administration would have some luck here, but its general, brazen approach to litigation has started to maybe infect its relationship with the Supreme Court.

[Adam Liptak]

And not in a good way.

[John Sauer]

No, I mean, the Solicitor General's office historically has a reputation for independence and candor. The Solicitor General is sometimes called the 10th justice because they can expect a straight presentation from him without cutting corners and engaging in clever maneuvers. But there's a sense that the Trump administration goes to court and engages in a kind of gamesmanship of trying to stay one step ahead of the courts rather than giving it the best legal argument they can and accepting the results. So the justices weren't happy with Sauer, and by the time he sits down, you had the distinct sense that they would like to solve this problem, this tension between their general dislike of nationwide injunctions and their feeling that something needed to happen in this case. And I think they were hoping that when the lawyers on the other side stood up and argued that those lawyers would help them find a middle ground, a limiting principle, some way to reconcile this tension.

[Adam Liptak]

And we will review what those lawyers said after the break.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

More people are stepping away from organized religion, and for good reason. Beliefs should be personal, but Christian nationalists are working to force their beliefs into laws, schools, and daily lives. It's, like, cool for you, but maybe don't make it mandatory. That's why the Freedom From Religion foundation exists, to keep church and state separate, just like the founders intended. Go to ffrf, us NYT and become a member today because no one likes unsolicited religious advice, especially when it's written into law.

[Capital One Ad]

This episode is supported by Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Hosted by Katie Milkman, an award winning behavioral scientist and author of the best selling book how to Change. Choiceology is a show about the psychology and economics behind our decisions. Hear true stories from Nobel laureates, historians, authors, athletes and everyday people about why we do the things we do. Listen to [e-mail] podcast or wherever you listen.

[Adam Liptak]

So Adam, on the other side of this case were lawyers for those who have won these universal injunctions against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship who were trying to defend those injunctions. So talk to us about their arguments before the justices.

[John Sauer]

So two lawyers argued on the other side. One of them, Jeremy Feigenbaum, is Solicitor General of New Jersey and he was arguing on behalf of more than 20 blue states who have won in the lower courts.

[Solicitor General]

Mr. Feigenbaum, Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, this court should deny the emergency application because this injunction was properly designed to ensure that the states would get relief for Our own article 3 injuries as we suffer significant pocketbook and sovereign harms from implementation of this executive order.

[John Sauer]

And he quickly takes on a different tone with the justices.

[Solicitor General]

The US Prefers alternative approaches for granting that relief, but its approach would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you're born, or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines, raising serious and unanswered administrability questions not just for the federal government but also for the states.

[John Sauer]

If Sauer was maximalist, Feigenbaum was relentlessly reasonable, acknowledging that nationwide injunctions can be problematic.

[Solicitor General]

The states who regularly come before this court as plaintiff and defendant alike agree that nationwide relief can be reserved for narrow circumstances.

[John Sauer]

But he said in this case, but it was needed here, it's really warranted, particularly because states are suing and if they are going to get effective relief from a court, it needs to be nationwide. And he demonstrates this by talking about practicalities. New Jersey provides services to citizens and needs to figure out who is a citizen and who's not.

[Solicitor General]

And we have In New Jersey 6,000 babies born out of state every year when they come into the state and they need benefits. The Boyle declaration from Massachusetts and thousands.

[John Sauer]

Of people move to New Jersey every.

[Solicitor General]

Year they come into our state, they need benefits. We have to do citizenship verifications, which is a burden for us.

[John Sauer]

That's for you in New Jersey and under a system of birthright citizenship, which applies in 22 states but doesn't in others, it's really hard to know how that works in practice.

[Justice Sonia Sotomayor]

So 23 states are going to have babies who were born somewhere else without a birth certificate that you're now, if they move into your state, going to have to do checking on it.

[Solicitor General]

And that comes to the United States alternative Justice Sotomayor, which is they say, okay, maybe their citizenship turns on when they enter New Jersey, maybe for some purposes, maybe for all purposes, depending on which sentence you're looking at.

[John Sauer]

So if a child is born in Kansas and under the Trump executive order, is not a citizen, but moves to New Jersey, becomes a citizen the moment he or she passes the state border, because it's not about what state you're born in, it's about whether you're born in the United States or not, it.

[Solicitor General]

Will undermine the administration of our benefits program. So individuals will move in when they were born, they were treated as noncitizens. They didn't get Social Security numbers because they wouldn't have been eligible for the enumeration at birth program in their states. And they're going to arrive and they're going to seek benefits that we administer. But federal law requires that they have Social Security numbers for the administration of those benefits.

[John Sauer]

And you have to figure out how to get the kid a Social Security number, which it didn't have before, seven.

[Solicitor General]

For tanf, for Medicaid and so on. So you're going to need to have Social Security numbers. They're going to arrive without them, even though they were under this court's precedence, citizens who should have been in the enumeration at birth program, who should have had Social Security numbers. And it's going to be a burden.

[John Sauer]

On us, and it just becomes an unadministrable jumble. And that seemed to resonate with the justices that this may be a case where if you're going to have nationwide injunctions, this is the case you want to do it in.

[Adam Liptak]

So basically, New Jersey's solicitor general is saying, if justices, you don't like nationwide injunctions, I am not here to tell you that they're wonderful, but I am here to tell you that if you don't let a universal injunction survive in this specific case, it's going to create a tremendous amount of mayhem across the country.

[John Sauer]

Right.

[Adam Liptak]

And how compelled were the justices by this guidance?

[John Sauer]

You know, I guess I would say they were kind of all over the map. Some of them seemed to be fully on board. Some of them continued to be skeptical, Notably Justice Alito, who while he said he respected federal district court judges, didn't seem to want to empower them to issue these kinds of injunctions. All Article 3 judges are vulnerable to.

[Solicitor General]

An occupational disease, which is the disease.

[John Sauer]

Of thinking that I am right and I can do whatever I want now on a multi member appellate court that is restrained by one's colleagues, but the trial judge sitting in the trial judge's courtroom is the monarch of that. And some of them, Justice Gorsuch among them, still seem to be itching to hear about the merits, to hear about the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions. How do we get to the merits fast?

[Solicitor General]

This court could set supplemental briefing on the merits by an order tomorrow if it wished specifically to say, because you.

[John Sauer]

Wouldn'T have to deal with whether an injunction is good, bad, appropriate or not if you could just rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Because whatever else, a Supreme Court ruling applies to the whole nation.

[Adam Liptak]

Right. You don't need a universal injunction or even a debate about them. If the Supreme Court has asked whether the President's executive order itself constitutional.

[John Sauer]

Exactly right.

[Solicitor General]

Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted.

[Adam Liptak]

So, Adam, given the reality that the Trump administration is not bringing the merit based case to the court, instead it's bringing this case that tries to invalidate nationwide injunctions, how do you think the justices are likely to rule in this case and how quickly? I mean, clearly they're skeptical of the White House's position here. They're equally skeptical to some degree of nationwide injunctions. So where do you think they're going to land?

[John Sauer]

You know, Michael, I'm ordinarily not shy about making predictions.

[Adam Liptak]

Not at all.

[John Sauer]

I think this one is likely to be a little splintered, if I had to bet, but I wouldn't do it very enthusiastically. I think the court will find a way to say that this particular injunction is okay. While nationwide injunctions generally are problematic, I also think there's at least a 20% chance that they wake up and say, you know, we really can't do this by half measures. We have to get to the constitutional issue somehow and to invite further briefing or maybe even re argument on the core question. In the case of the constitutionality and birthright citizenship, that's not very easy to achieve as a procedural matter, but at the end of the day, the court can do what it likes.

[Adam Liptak]

In other words, there's some chance that they might not rule at all and ask for the entire enchilada instead.

[John Sauer]

I think there's a chance of that. I think that would be attractive to a lot of them because the outcome of that question, I'm much less reticent to say if the question of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship reaches this court, there will be a lopsided ruling against the Trump administration.

[Adam Liptak]

Adam, assuming that the justices don't seek the bigger merit based case to come before them, but they rule in a way that narrowly upholds the injunction in this case, what will that mean for the Trump agenda to have lost this bid to strike down basically all nationwide injunctions?

[John Sauer]

I think the Trump administration could lose this case on that ground. So the nationwide injunction against the birthright citizenship order would stay in place and still achieve a substantial victory. Because I could imagine a decision where the court says we're going to let this one go, but as a general matter, we don't like them. Lower courts, you can't use them in the following ways. And so they take a hit on this one, but in the process achieve guidance from the Supreme Court that will be very favorable to their agenda.

[Adam Liptak]

Right. Because nationwide injunctions curb the power of this really powerful president. And if in general, the court starts to disfavor those injunctions, then this presidency grows even more powerful than it already is.

[John Sauer]

And that would mean that the litigation strategy, which a lot of people have been skeptical about, who have wondered why the administration went up on this issue on this vehicle, which is not particularly favorable to them, on their argument about nationwide injunctions, might still turn out to be a pretty good idea because maybe they get language from the court that will help them in many other cases and allow President Trump to pursue what is the most transformative legal agenda of any president since at least fdr.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, Adam, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

[John Sauer]

Thank you, Michael. Foreign.

[Michael Barbaro]

We'Ll be right back.

[Capital One Ad]

This message comes from Capital One. Your business requires commercial banking solutions that prioritize your long term success with Capital One. Get a full suite of financial products and services tailored to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow. Learn [e-mail] Commercial Member FDIC this podcast.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

Is supported by Strawberry Me. Unlike any class book or podcast, Strawberry Me Career Coaching gives you something truly unique. A professional partner who's 100% focused on your success. It's not just advice. It's like therapy for your career. Your coach will ask the right questions, helping you uncover hidden strengths, break through obstacles, and move forward with confidence. If you're ready to unlock your full potential, visit Strawberry Methedaily to claim your $50 credit. That's Strawberry Me TheDaily.

[Michael Barbaro]

Here'S what else you need to know Today.

[John Sauer]

We're in very serious negotiations with Iran for long term peace and if we do that, it'll be fantastic.

[Michael Barbaro]

On Thursday, President Trump said that his staff was nearing a nuclear deal with Iran, a major foreign policy goal of his second term. Negotiators from the United States and Iran have held four rounds of talks, but so far the exact details of any potential deal remain unknown.

[John Sauer]

We've been strong. I want them to succeed. I want them to end up being a great country, frankly. But they can't have a nuclear weapon. That's the only thing. It's very simple.

[Michael Barbaro]

It's not like and the retail giant Walmart said that President Trump's reciprocal tariffs would force it to raise prices on a wide range of goods starting later this month, even after President Trump rolled back his biggest tariffs. In an interview with cnbc, the company's chief financial officer said that it was now impossible for Walmart to keep prices at their current rates.

[Solicitor General]

We've not seen a period where you've had prices go up this high this quickly. We're well equipped and experienced in dealing with elasticities or price increases that are going up 2 or 3% but not 30%. So understanding.

[Michael Barbaro]

Today'S episode was produced by Mooj Zaidy, Alex Stern, Will Reed, Eric Krupke and Michael Simon Johnson, with help from Alexandra Lee Young. It was edited by Liz O' Ballin and Devin Taylor, contains original music by Pat McCusker and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Runberg and Ben Landsvark of Wonderland. That's it for the daily I'm Michael Balboro. See you on Monday.

[Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson]

This podcast is supported by Saatva. Spring cleaning can be good for your home and your mind. It can boost your mood, sharpen your focus and fuel productivity. Another way to do all that Sleeping well. Voted Best Luxury Mattress by sleepfoundation. Org. Every satva is handcrafted for a great night's sleep, and they cost far less than retail. Save $600 on $1,000 or more at satva. Com nyt.