Trump takes his plan to end birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked the president’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said in three concurrently filed emergency applications in different cases that it was a “modest” request.

Notably, she is not asking the court to issue a decision on the merits of the plan that would apply nationwide. Instead, the government wants to the court to limit lower court injunctions to individuals or groups that sued over President Donald Trump’s order, and potentially to people who live in the Democratic-led states that challenged it.

She also asked that the court allow agencies to be able to work on how the executive order issued by Trump on his first day in office could be implemented, if it ever does go into effect.

If the request is granted, the administration could move forward with developing its policy and try to implement it in some form.

Most legal experts say the proposal is doomed and unlikely to ever be put into practice because the Constitution’s 14th Amendment is clear that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.

At least five votes on the nine-justice Supreme Court are needed for an emergency request to be granted.

Trump’s lawyers argue that birthright citizenship should be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

The Trump administration filings arise from three cases around the country challenging the proposal. Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state all ruled that the policy is likely unconstitutional and blocked it. Appeals courts upheld those preliminary findings and refused to put the rulings on hold.

The lower court rulings apply to the entire country, but Harris said in her filings that judges did not have the authority to order such broad relief.

Such broad injunctions “compromise the executive branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” Harris wrote.

“This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she added.

Presidents of both parties have complained about judges issuing nationwide injunctions in recent years. So have some Supreme Court justices. But the court has yet to meaningfully rein them in.