Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Cases Amid Legal Controversy

Washington, D.C. — On May 18, 2025, the Supreme Court held nearly two and a half hours of arguments in a trio of significant birthright citizenship cases: Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. The plaintiffs include both states and private parties challenging the legality of an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump regarding citizenship rights.

The cases hinge on whether Trump’s order can be legally enforced, with universal injunctions at the forefront of discussions. Legal experts are closely watching these proceedings, as the outcome could reshape policies around birthright citizenship.

D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States, represented the Trump administration during the proceedings. He faced tough questions from justices regarding the government’s stance, especially concerning how the Court could expedite decisions about citizenship rights without the administration presenting a strong legal case.

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s Solicitor General, argued on behalf of the states challenging the executive order, while Kelsi Corkran from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection represented CASA, one of the private organizations involved in the litigation.

Feigenbaum, recognized for his adept handling of complex cases, impressed many observers, particularly given his limited experience before the Supreme Court. The Court’s questioning indicated a robust interest in the implications of the Trump administration’s immigration policies and their effects on established rights.

In a related legal context, Judge Lauren Peffer from Broward County, Florida, faced ethics charges for allegedly citing non-existent sources during her election campaign. Peffer’s case underscores ongoing concerns about credibility within the judiciary, casting a shadow over recent debates about legal propriety.

The battle over governance and legal interpretation continues, with implications for both civil rights and judicial integrity. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely.