The Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments this week regarding President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, marking his first major administrative action to reach the high court during his second term.

According to The Hill, while the justices will not directly address the constitutionality of Trump's order blocking automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizens on U.S. soil, they will examine the nationwide scope of lower court injunctions that have temporarily blocked the policy.

The case has sparked intense debate within conservative legal circles about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office, would fundamentally alter the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to nearly all children born on American soil. The order specifically targets children whose parents lack permanent legal status in the United States.

Constitutional debate divides legal scholars

Two prominent law professors, Ilan Wurman from the University of Minnesota and Randy Barnett from Georgetown University, published an opinion piece in the New York Times suggesting Trump's order might survive Supreme Court scrutiny. Their argument centers on the interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.

Kurt Lash, a constitutional scholar at the University of Richmond, has drawn parallels between contemporary noncitizen children and Native Americans during the 14th Amendment's ratification. His research suggests that children born to unauthorized immigrants might fall outside the amendment's citizenship guarantees.

However, Northern Illinois University law professor Evan Bernick strongly contests this interpretation. He argues that the comparison between noncitizen children and historical Native Americans is fundamentally flawed, pointing to significant differences in legal status and rights.

Shifting perspectives within conservative circles

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, once a staunch defender of broad birthright citizenship, has notably modified his stance. His evolution on the issue reflects the broader reassessment occurring within conservative legal thought.

The case has attracted significant attention from various stakeholders, with numerous states, lawmakers, and advocacy groups submitting briefs to the Supreme Court. Democratic lawmakers have been particularly vocal in their opposition to Trump's order.

A group of over 180 Democratic legislators emphasized in their court filing:

The President must participate in the political process and adhere to our constitutional structure, not simply ignore them. And unless and until Congress changes the laws, the President must follow them.

Supreme Court faces immediate procedural questions

The justices will specifically address whether nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts are appropriate when ruling against presidential orders. This procedural question has significant implications for how courts handle challenges to executive actions.

Ten different lawsuits have challenged Trump's order, with several now appearing before the Supreme Court on its emergency docket. The unusual decision to hold oral arguments for an emergency appeal underscores the case's importance.

Legal experts anticipate that the broader constitutional questions about birthright citizenship may eventually reach the Supreme Court, regardless of this week's outcome on the injunction issue.

Future of citizenship rights takes center stage

President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship represents a dramatic departure from longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The order, which would deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents without permanent legal status, faces multiple legal challenges across federal courts. While the Supreme Court's immediate focus remains on the procedural question of nationwide injunctions, the case has already triggered an extensive debate about constitutional interpretation and the scope of presidential authority in determining citizenship rights.