The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments concerning President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship and limit the power of federal courts to impede his agenda. The case, expedited to the high court shortly after Trump's return to the White House, centers on an emergency appeal regarding an executive order denying passports and documents to babies born to non-US citizens.

Trump's administration seeks to restrict court orders, pausing his policies nationwide, to only those who directly sue over them. This stance is rooted in the belief that courts have overstepped their authority by second-guessing the president's agenda, a sentiment shared by presidents of both parties in the past. The key issue for the Supreme Court is whether it will allow the government to alter the understanding of birthright citizenship established over a century ago by the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.

The immediate question before the court is whether lower courts exceeded their power by blocking Trump's executive order on a nationwide basis. The Department of Justice argues that such universal injunctions have become rampant and harm the separation of powers. However, critics argue that separating procedural issues from practical implications is difficult, as a win for Trump could require numerous individual lawsuits or a class action challenge.

The court must also determine whether the Trump administration faces irreparable harm if the injunctions remain in place. The administration contends that temporary court orders violate separation of powers principles, citing the high number of injunctions against Trump compared to his predecessors. Critics argue that the administration cannot be harmed by maintaining an approach in place for over a century, referencing the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for those born in the US, with few exceptions.

Furthermore, the Trump administration challenges the states' right to sue over the birthright citizenship order, potentially limiting the ability of states to challenge other presidential policies. The Supreme Court has previously limited states' ability to sue the president, but the states argue they have a stronger case here due to the financial impact on health and education programs.

While concerns about nationwide injunctions have been voiced across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court could either eliminate them entirely or take a more incremental approach. Opponents warn that eliminating universal injunctions during an administration pushing legal boundaries would be a dangerous mistake. The underlying question of whether Trump can legally end automatic birthright citizenship is expected to return to the Supreme Court in the future.

The Trump administration is seeking to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides, arguing that universal injunctions undermine the uniformity of US citizenship. Critics argue that this would lead to inconsistencies in citizenship status depending on the state of birth.

Another issue in the case is "judge shopping," where plaintiffs seek sympathetic courts for nationwide injunctions. The executive order at the heart of the matter decreed that children born to parents in the US illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become US citizens, a stance challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment.