(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court to significantly narrow nationwide injunctions issued by three different federal judges blocking his executive order redefining birthright citizenship in the U.S.

The emergency applications ask the justices to take a “modest” step and roll back the judges’ restrictions on Trump’s Day 1 order, allowing federal agencies to move forward with developing guidance and preparing for implementation if, at the end of litigation, the president prevails.

“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the application.

Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to unlawful immigrants or those on a temporary immigrant status. The administration’s claimed in court proceedings birthright citizenship creates a strong incentive for illegal immigration.

Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state, in their rulings, have said such a move would appear plainly contrary to the text of the 14th Amendment and legal precedent.

The 14th Amendment states that 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.”

The Trump administration, in its appeals to the Supreme Court, railed against the use of nationwide injunctions and said they should be limited to the plaintiffs involved in the legal challenges.

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” the acting solicitor general wrote. “The Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and the identified members of the organizational plaintiffs (and, if the Court concludes that States are proper litigants, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States).”

“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.