SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case

Summary

NPR Politics Podcast Summary: SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case

Episode Title: SCOTUS Hears Birthright Citizenship Case
Release Date: May 15, 2025
Host: Sarah McCammon, Susan Davis, Carrie Johnson
Duration: Approximately 20 minutes (content-focused sections)

---

1. Introduction

In this episode of The NPR Politics Podcast, hosts Sarah McCammon, Susan Davis, and Carrie Johnson delve into a pivotal Supreme Court case concerning birthright citizenship. The discussion centers around the arguments presented before the Court, the legal and political ramifications of the case, and its broader impact on the U.S. immigration system.

---

2. Understanding Birthright Citizenship

Sarah McCammon opens the conversation by referencing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Timestamp: [01:07]

Susan Davis elaborates on the concept, explaining that birthright citizenship is generally straightforward, with minor exceptions. However, Donald Trump's administration has sought to challenge this traditional interpretation.
Timestamp: [01:32]

Notable Quote:
"Birthright citizenship is spelled out plain as day as the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which essentially says practically all persons [...] have the right, the birthright to citizenship."
— Susan Davis [01:32]

---

3. Trump's Executive Order and Legal Challenges

Sarah McCammon asks Susan Davis about Trump's actions regarding birthright citizenship.
Timestamp: [01:07]

Susan Davis details Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, particularly targeting children born to parents without legal status. This order sparked immediate legal challenges from multiple states and advocacy groups.
Timestamp: [01:32]

Carrie Johnson explains that the legal battle swiftly reached the Supreme Court, involving 22 states and immigrant rights organizations. Notably, the Solicitor General, John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, faced off against state attorneys and advocates in oral arguments.
Timestamp: [02:34]

Notable Quote:
"The issue before the court today wasn't necessarily the constitutional rightness or wrongness of that executive order, but the matter by which he did it and the court's ability to stop him."
— Susan Davis [02:31]

---

4. Universal Injunctions and the Balance of Power

The discussion shifts to the concept of universal injunctions, a legal tool that allows a single federal judge to block an executive action nationwide, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Sarah McCammon introduces the topic, highlighting its significance in the current case.
Timestamp: [02:31]

Carrie Johnson defines universal injunctions, noting their increasing use and the bipartisan frustration they provoke among presidents and administrations.
Timestamp: [03:50]

Notable Quote:
"Universal injunctions are [...] the ability of a single federal judge around the country to block something the administration wants to do and for it to take effect across the entire country."
— Carrie Johnson [03:50]

Susan Davis adds historical context, mentioning the rise of these injunctions since the 1960s and their impact on executive actions from both parties, including recent examples from Presidents Biden and Obama.
Timestamp: [05:55]

---

5. Implications of Patchwork Policies

The potential for patchwork policies arises when different jurisdictions have varying rules due to the absence of universal injunctions.

Sarah McCammon raises concerns about inconsistent policies across states.
Timestamp: [05:55]

Carrie Johnson discusses the justices' discomfort with nationwide injunctions, emphasizing the difficulty in managing fundamental rights like birthright citizenship within this framework.
Timestamp: [06:22]

Notable Quote:
"There could hardly be a more fundamental right than that [birthright citizenship]."
— Carrie Johnson [06:22]

---

6. Practical Challenges and Implementation

The hosts explore the practical challenges of implementing Trump's executive order if it were to be upheld.

Susan Davis references an exchange between Justice Kavanaugh and John Sauer regarding the logistical issues of determining citizenship for newborns across state lines.
Timestamp: [07:38]

Jeremy Feigenbaum (Solicitor General for New Jersey) offers insights into potential administrative hurdles, such as verifying legal presence and updating birth certificate processes.
Timestamp: [08:16]

Notable Quote:
"They're only going to have 30 days to do this. Do you think they can get it together in time?"
— Susan Davis [09:00]

---

7. Political Ramifications and Public Opinion

The discussion addresses the political fallout from Trump's immigration policies and the administration's waning public support.

Sarah McCammon connects the issue to Trump's broader immigration stance and its impact on his approval ratings.
Timestamp: [13:34]

Susan Davis highlights recent polling data showing low public support for ending birthright citizenship and growing discontent with the administration's deportation practices.
Timestamp: [13:59]

Notable Quote:
"A majority of Americans do not support this action [ending birthright citizenship]."
— Susan Davis [14:09]

---

8. Supreme Court's Deliberation and Potential Outcomes

The podcast examines how the Supreme Court might approach the case, considering both the legal principles and the existing judicial discomfort with universal injunctions.

Carrie Johnson notes the challenging nature of the case, given the historical precedence of birthright citizenship and the justices' varying views on universal injunctions.
Timestamp: [15:35]

Susan Davis observes that justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of the government's arguments, adding complexity to the Court's deliberation.
Timestamp: [18:17]

Notable Quote:
"This is a really hard problem, [...] it's hard to figure out how they can draw a fence around that."
— Carrie Johnson [15:45]

Predicted Timeline: Decisions may emerge by late June or early July, but outcomes remain uncertain.
Timestamp: [17:26]

---

9. Conclusion

The episode concludes with an acknowledgment of the high stakes involved in the case and the profound uncertainty facing individuals potentially affected by the Court's decision.

Susan Davis emphasizes the complexity and the critical nature of the case, indicating that its resolution will have far-reaching implications for immigration policy and the balance of executive and judicial powers.
Timestamp: [18:53]

Notable Quote:
"And it'll be very curious to see how narrow or broad this court wants to make about a statement about this issue of injunctions and when and how they can be used."
— Susan Davis [18:17]

Sarah McCammon wraps up by highlighting the ongoing questions for those directly impacted by the potential ruling, underscoring the episode's focus on the intersection of law, politics, and human lives.
Timestamp: [19:06]

---

Key Takeaways

• Birthright Citizenship Under Scrutiny: The Supreme Court is set to rule on the Trump administration's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, a move that challenges longstanding constitutional interpretations.

• Legal and Practical Hurdles: The case not only questions a fundamental right but also the procedural mechanisms, such as universal injunctions, that allow single judges to implement nationwide policies.

• Political and Social Implications: Trump's immigration policies, particularly regarding birthright citizenship, have seen declining public support, complicating the administration's agenda.

• Supreme Court Uncertainty: The Court's decision remains unpredictable, with justices grappling with both the letter of the law and the broader implications of their rulings on executive power and citizens' rights.

---

Notable Quotes with Attribution and Timestamps

• "Birthright citizenship is spelled out plain as day as the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which essentially says practically all persons [...] have the right, the birthright to citizenship."
  — Susan Davis [01:32]

• "Universal injunctions are [...] the ability of a single federal judge around the country to block something the administration wants to do and for it to take effect across the entire country."
  — Carrie Johnson [03:50]

• "A majority of Americans do not support this action [ending birthright citizenship]."
  — Susan Davis [14:09]

• "This is a really hard problem, [...] it's hard to figure out how they can draw a fence around that."
  — Carrie Johnson [15:45]

• "And it'll be very curious to see how narrow or broad this court wants to make about a statement about this issue of injunctions and when and how they can be used."
  — Susan Davis [18:17]

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights from the NPR Politics Podcast episode on the Supreme Court hearing the birthright citizenship case. It provides listeners, both regular and new, with a clear understanding of the legal arguments, political context, and potential societal impacts surrounding this significant legal battle.

Transcript

[Susan Davis]

Know that fizzy feeling you get when you read something really good. Watch the movie everyone's been talking about. Or catch the show that the Internet can't get over. At the Pop Culture Happy Hour Podcast, we chase that feeling four times a week. We'll serve you recommendations and commentary on the buzziest movies, tv, music and more, from lowbrow to highbrow to the stuff in between. Catch the Pop Culture Happy Hour Podcast from npr. Hi, this is Professor Nixon hanging out.

[Professor Nixon]

With my Wednesday night crew of future.

[Sarah McCammon]

Teachers celebrating our last week of finals at Marist University. This podcast was recorded at 1:50pm Eastern Time on Thursday, May 15, 2025. Things may have changed by the time you hear this. Like will have graduated from college. Awesome.

[Susan Davis]

Such a good feeling.

[Sarah McCammon]

And thank you for your service. Teachers are so important. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics.

[Susan Davis]

I'm Susan Davis. I also cover politics.

[Carrie Johnson]

And I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Sarah McCammon]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Those are the words of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. And today on the Pod, arguments before the U.S. supreme Court could determine whether this remains true. Sue, I wanna start there. What is birthright citizenship and what is the Trump administration trying to do?

[Susan Davis]

Birthright citizenship is spelled out plain as day as the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which essentially says practically all persons. There are a few minor exceptions to the law, but practically anyone born on US Soil has the right, the birthright to citizenship. Now, Donald Trump has long taken issue with this. He campaigned on it. He doesn't support it. Trump does not believe that children born to parents who are in the US Legal authorization to be here should be granted citizenship at birth. And on his first day in office, one of his first acts was an executive order essentially ending birthright citizenship, saying that if you are born in this country to parents who neither can claim any right to legal status or citizenship, that you are no longer automatically given that right. Now, the issue before the court today wasn't necessarily the constitutional rightness or wrongness of that executive order, but the matter by which he did it and the court's ability to stop him.

[Sarah McCammon]

Carrie, who's fighting the Trump administration this?

[Carrie Johnson]

Within 24 hours of this executive order on January 20th, the state of Washington weighed in with a lawsuit. And this case came to the Supreme Court as part of three separate legal disputes involving 22 states. All in all, two immigrant rights groups and a number of expectant parents who had a huge stake in this case because their babies could possibly be born stateless if this order went into effect. And so what we heard today was the Solicitor General, John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration. Sauer, you may remember, actually argued as Trump's private lawyer in that big immunity case last term. And then the Solicitor General for the state of New Jersey and a lawyer from Georgetown Law center arguing on behalf of states, the expectant parents, and the immigrant rights groups.

[Sarah McCammon]

And as sue just mentioned, this case isn't just about birthright citizenship. That's the central issue here. But it's also about an issue that sounds a little technical, but is really very central to the question of balance of power between the president and the courts. We're talking about something known as universal injunctions. Carrie, what are those, and how do they come into the case?

[Carrie Johnson]

Universal injunctions are sometimes also called nationwide injunctions. And what they are, basically, is the ability of a single federal judge around the country to block something the administration wants to do and for it to take effect across the entire country. It's something that presidents from both parties have been complaining about, at least since the George W. Bush era. It's something that justice departments from both political parties have really resisted. And we're kind of now in, according to the Trump administration epidemic proportions, because in just over four months, there have been 40 nationwide injunctions against things Trump wants to do in office.

[Sarah McCammon]

And, yeah, to that point, I mean, sue, there's been bipartisan concern about this practice of nationwide injunctions, hasn't there?

[Susan Davis]

There isn't. I also learned something before the court today listening to these arguments, because in our lifetimes, these injunctions seem almost commonplace. We're used to these happening under modern presidents. But in an exchange, I believe it was between John Sauer and Justice Clarence Thomas, he was asking him about the rise in the use of these, and Sauer argued that they really started to become more of a feature of American judicial life in the 1960s, and they've increasingly creeped up over time. But you're right, Sarah. Presidents in both parties have used executive orders to try to enact law. And presidents of both parties have been handcuffed by lower courts that have used these injunctions to say, you can't do that. Two recent examples under President Biden, when he tried to do a student loan forgiveness program, the courts blocked that from going into place. Under President Barack Obama, he tried to change national immigration laws, and there was injunctions put on that, and the court ultimately threw it out. So I think in some ways Trump is benefiting, right? Like there's now been a long established precedent of executives being irritated at the use of these injunctions. And I think some sympathy, at least we heard today from some of the justices that look like these injunctions can be very powerful and does give singular justices an ability to make law. I think someone put it from sea to shining sea.

[Sarah McCammon]

Well, on the one hand, they are a check on executive power, right? I mean, that's sort of what they're intended to be, sure, by design. On the other hand, it's one judge, one federal judge, essentially making a ruling that applies to everyone across the country. One of the challenges or one of the concerns that came up in these arguments was the fact that you could end up with a patchwork policy, right? You could have different rules in different places without a nationwide injunction. I mean, explain how that works, Carrie.

[Carrie Johnson]

So what's going on here is that justices who are appointed by presidents of both political parties have been on record over time in court writings and in speeches of being kind of disgusted with nationwide injunctions. You can really disagree with the ability of one judge in some part of the country to set policy for the entire country. The challenge here, Sarah, is that it's clashing in this case with the facts and the precedent, precedent going back 127 years with respect to birthright citizenship. There could hardly be a more fundamental right than that. And this is maybe not the best case for the Supreme Court to make a point about universal injunctions. And a lot of what we heard today, over two and a half hours of oral argument, was the justices arguing with each other in themselves and the advocates about where to draw a line. And I don't think we got a lot of clear answers about what they're going to do, but there was a lot of push and pull over how they could respect people's fundamental rights and their ability to bring cases without causing chaos across the country and frustrating a president's legitimate agenda items.

[Susan Davis]

There was a lot of these questions about how you could even implement a patchwork system like that. And there was a really good exchange between Justice Kavanaugh and John Sauer, where he was talking about where babies are born. A lot of states are porous, in the words of the New Jersey solicitor General. The example they use is a lot of people live in South Jersey will go to Children's Hospital in Pennsylvania to have their babies. And Kavanaugh was kind of pressing him on this point on the day after it goes into effect. This is just a very practical question, how this is going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?

[Jeremy Feigenbaum]

I don't think they do anything different. What the executive order says in Section two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.

[Susan Davis]

How are they going to know that.

[Jeremy Feigenbaum]

The states can continue to. The federal officials will have to figure that out. So you can imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could.

[Susan Davis]

Such as?

[Jeremy Feigenbaum]

Such as they could require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country for a temporary visitor, for example. They could see whether they're on a B1 visa, which would exclude kind of the birthright citizenship in that kind of.

[Susan Davis]

For all the newborns. Is that how that's going to work?

[Jeremy Feigenbaum]

Again, we don't know because the agencies were never given the opportunity to formulate the guidance. They would add 30.

[Susan Davis]

They're only going to have 30 days to do this. You think they can get it together in time?

[Jeremy Feigenbaum]

They're under. That's what the executive order instructs them to do, and hopefully they will do so.

[Susan Davis]

Now, keep in mind, if this executive order were to go into place, it would take effect in 30 days. That is an incredibly short period of time to try to implement a policy that would basically upend American life.

[Sarah McCammon]

Has the Trump administration given any indication about how they would resolve these significant questions that would seem to arise if different jurisdictions have different rules about who is a citizen?

[Susan Davis]

No. And I would say that part of what the administration has taken issue with with this injunction is the fact that it has also blocked the administration from even taking any steps within the Department of Homeland Security or the State Department to implement that kind of guidance of how they think that this would play out if it were allowed to be implemented.

[Sarah McCammon]

It's time for a break. We'll have more in just a moment.

[Professor Nixon]

This message comes from 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 Saatva is handcrafted for a great night's sleep. And they cost far less than retail. This Memorial Day. Save $600 on $1,000 or more at saatva.com NPR Imagine, if you will, a show from NPR that's not like npr, a show that focuses not on the important but the stupid, which features stories about people smuggling animals in their pants, incompetent criminals and ridiculous science studies and call it Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, because the good names were taken. Listen to NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. Yes, that is what it is called. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Susan Davis]

I'm Tonya Moseley, co host of FRESH air. At a time of sound bites and short attention spans, our show is all about the deep dive. We do long form interviews with people behind the best in film, books, tv, music and journalism. Here our guests open up about their process and their lives in ways you've never heard before. Listen to the FRESH AIR podcast from NPR and whyy.

[Sarah McCammon]

And we're back. So we were just talking about a lot of the uncertainty that this case sort of injects into the whole immigration system, particularly for people who may be expecting babies, people without documentation. Kerry, what did the lawyers argue would be the harms for those people who are currently in the country and expecting a child and uncertain how this is going to unfold?

[Carrie Johnson]

You know, if you get rid of these universal injunctions, one possibility that the Trump administration seems to want to have happen is that everyone would have to go to court and sue. And that's extremely challenging. Not everybody can find a lawyer. Some of these people may be afraid to come forward because of the consequences that could happen because of their immigration status. And justice. Ketanji Brown Jackson kind of pointed to this issue. She called it a catch me if you can problem.

[Susan Davis]

The real concern, I think, is that your argument 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.

[Sarah McCammon]

And we heard the argument, I think that that essentially requires people to sort of raise a flag and say, look at me. Right? By going to court and raising this issue.

[Carrie Johnson]

Yeah. And there's other harm than that. We heard those harms basically discussed at great length by Jeremy Feigenbaum. He's the solicitor general for the state of New Jersey. And he was basically the guy making the argument for all the states who sued over this birthright citizenship order. Feigenbaum basically said this going to cost states tens of millions of dollars in administrative costs to try to figure out how to respond. It's going to upend the way that birth certificates operate now, and it's really going to be a huge mess for states to figure out. He also said that this would be the first time since the Civil War that citizenship would stop at a state border. So how could it be that if you happen to be born in New Jersey, you're a citizen, but if you happen to be born across the border in Pennsylvania, you're not? That just doesn't make any sense for such a fundamental right.

[Sarah McCammon]

He said immigration, as we've said many times on this podcast, was such a major issue in the campaign. Trump promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, on illegal immigration, and he's taken a number of very significant actions since taking office. Sue. Ending birthright citizenship was one of those, one of the things he promised to do. But does he have public support on this issue?

[Susan Davis]

Yeah, I mean, this was shocking, but not a surprise, right? Like, Donald Trump campaigned on this very issue of ending birthright citizenship and he won an election. So you can see from the President's standpoint that he should be empowered to do something like this. And I do think that broadly on the issue of immigration, a tougher stance on illegal immigration, or all matters of immigration for that matter, I think Donald Trump believes he won this election running on that. So I think that they do feel like they are on strong political ground. But what, what has been interesting is that when Donald Trump had such a clear advantage on the question of immigration before the election, since taking office and since taking such high profile actions towards reducing illegal immigration, his polling has gone completely downward. And we're seeing that across polling, including in our own most recent NPR Ipsos poll out today that showed that just a third of Americans support ending birthright citizenship. A majority of Americans do not support this action. And you're also seeing those polling attitudes start to shift on how the President has been handling deportations. In many cases, people are being deprived due process rights or people who are here legally have been detained or deported. So I think that the president sort of won the argument in the election, but the execution of how he is doing this is causing a lot of consternation in the country. And again, we are only four months into his term. And so seeing such a sharp downward trajectory does indicate that the President might be moving at a pace that is faster and maybe more dramatic than the country is prepared for.

[Sarah McCammon]

There's so much at stake in this case. Kerry, from what you heard from the justices, did they signal how they're thinking about these issues? And really, I'm talking about the conservative justices.

[Carrie Johnson]

I think this is a really hard problem, right? I mean, many of the justices, maybe even most of them, have real beef with this issue of universal injunctions. The problem is when you graft those complaints against the facts of this case and the substance of this birthright issue, it gets very difficult in part because this all stems from the 14th Amendment. There was an 1898 Supreme Court case about a baby boy born in San Francisco to Chinese parents and then a 1940 statute, and then just precedent upon precedent upon precedent. And so there seemed to be fair agreement among the justices that they have questions about the legality of what Trump wants to do with birthright issues. It's not clear at all how they're gonna land on these injunctions. And if they wanna limit the number of times that a single district judge can make policy for the whole country or at least put the president's policy on pause, it's hard to figure out how they can draw a fence around that. And one answer that came from Kelsey Corcoran from Georgetown, who was arguing for the immigrant rights groups and the expectant moms, is that maybe you allow these nationwide injunctions in cases where a fundamental constitutional right is at issue here, and in cases like the New Jersey solicitor general was arguing, where states have a huge stake both in terms of how much money they're going to receive under Medicaid and children's insurance plans and how much of a huge burden it would be to end the entire system by which they recognize the birth of babies.

[Sarah McCammon]

How does this play out from here? The court's expected to rule at some point.

[Carrie Johnson]

You know, many of the justices asked, including Chief Justice John Roberts and I think Neil Gorsuch as well, when and how the merits of this case, the substance of the birthright issue, would ever get to the Supreme Court. If they just decided narrowly on the preliminary injunctions now. And the people arguing on behalf of immigrants wanted the court to grapple with the substance, it's not at all clear that they're gonna be able to do that in a timely fashion. And so typically, decisions by the court come out in late June or early July before they take a summer break. If they decide to go small, we might see something much sooner. And if they decide to try to craft or develop or draw those lines and borders, it might take them till the end of the term. It's just hard to say right now.

[Susan Davis]

It's hard to say, too, because, and believe me, I am not the Supreme Court expert. But even to a layman's ear, two of the justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavana, seemed to be quite skeptical about some of the arguments the government was making. And to also further co opt NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, like listening to the totality of it. I think sometimes with cases, it seems pretty clear which way the court's leaning. And in this one, it just seems really complicated. And it'll be very curious to see how narrow or broad this court wants to make about a statement about this issue of injunctions and when and how they can be used.

[Sarah McCammon]

And in the meantime, a lot of questions for a lot of people who will be directly affected by the outcome. We'll leave it there for today. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover politics.

[Susan Davis]

I'm Susan Davis. I also cover politics.

[Carrie Johnson]

And I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

[Sarah McCammon]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.

[Professor Nixon]

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Made in Cookware president and co founder Jake Kalik shares a tool that's useful for both master and.

[Carrie Johnson]

Newbie griller the craftsmanship of the carbon steel griddle enhances your grilling experience because it allows you a totally different type of grill surface that opens up the amounts of food you're able to cook. So the griddle is the perfect accessory to add to your grill and kind of widen your grilling game.

[Professor Nixon]

Learn more about Made in Cookware at M A D e I n cookware.com.

[Carrie Johnson]

When Malcolm Gladwell presented NPR's Throughline podcast.

[Professor Nixon]

With a Peabody Award, he praised it.

[Carrie Johnson]

For its historical and moral clarity. On Throughline, we take you back in time to the origins of what's in the news, like presidential power, aging and evangelicalism.

[Susan Davis]

Time travel with us every week on.

[Carrie Johnson]

The Throughline podcast from NPR.