**Supreme Court Set to Hear Arguments on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order**

The US Supreme Court is preparing to deliberate over the contentious issue of birthright citizenship, a matter central to former President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. This pivotal case, which could radically influence how executive powers are exercised in the future, will see arguments presented on Thursday over whether lower courts can impose injunctions that block presidential orders across the nation.

Shortly after resuming office in January, Trump swiftly moved to repeal birthright citizenship by signing an executive order. This directive stated that children born in the US to undocumented immigrants would no longer be considered citizens. However, this order was promptly halted by three federal judges, continuing a trend of judiciary pushback against Trump’s executive actions. Trump has maintained that these nationwide injunctions were beyond the courts’ authority and has called into question their legality, urging the Supreme Court to side with him.

If Trump prevails, the decision would enhance his capacity to enforce campaign promises through executive orders without requiring Congressional approval, while significantly curtailing judicial checks. The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear a case in May is noteworthy, as it is not common practice for the high court. Trump’s influence on the bench is significant, having appointed three of the nine justices, reinforcing a conservative majority.

A considerable number of legal experts argue that Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Despite this, Trump's executive order argued that the phrase “jurisdiction thereof” excluded children of undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship.

Several federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington issued universal injunctions that blocked Trump’s directive. These injunctions themselves have become a point of contention, with the Trump administration accusing the lower courts of overstepping their powers. Highlighting what it calls an “epidemic” of universal injunctions, the administration has urged the Supreme Court to address their lawfulness.

The current case being heard by the Supreme Court consolidates three separate lawsuits from immigration advocates and 22 US states. The Trump administration has requested that the court rule in favor of limiting the scope of these injunctions, proposing they apply solely to the case's named immigrants or the plaintiff states, allowing the executive order to be partially enacted during ongoing legal proceedings.

According to the Justice Department, nearly 40 nationwide injunctions have been issued since Trump’s second term began. In a related precedent, the Supreme Court allowed enforcement of a military transgender ban after lower courts had issued blocking injunctions.

The potential cessation of birthright citizenship could affect tens of thousands of children, relegating many to a precarious status. One lawsuit argues this move would create a generation of second-class citizens. Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer at Case Western Reserve University, warns that without a clear path to citizenship, these children could become undocumented or even stateless, with no assurance their parents’ countries would accept them.

Despite facing significant criticism, the White House remains steadfast in its push for these substantial changes to immigration policy.