Judges of the Supreme Court seem to have been shared in arguments of the birth rights: nPR

The Supreme Court of the United States seemed to be at least partially divided on Thursday when the judges discussed more than two hours of arguments about how the lower courts were to cope with President Trump's executive order about the birthright of citizenship.

NPR Special reporting: Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of birth law citizenship

Do not see a playback key? Click here.

Trump has long said that there is no citizenship, but the Supreme Court decided otherwise 127 years ago. The Court said at the time and since then that the text of the fourteenth change issued after the civil war states that all babies born in the United States are automatically US citizens. On his first day of the office this year, Trump gave an executive regulation that was explained that the children are not entitled to automatic citizenship of parents who illegally enter the United States or on a temporary visa.

Groups for immigrant rights and 22 states sued, and three different district court judges have invalid and granted so -called universal yields, which prevented the administration from enforcing the Trump policy all over the country.

When the appeal courts refused to intervene during the legal dispute, the Trump government asked the Supreme Court to block universal occasions as a whole. The administration claimed that individual district judges should not have such comprehensive authority. So the court heard emergency arguments on Thursday in the case.

The Conservatives of the Court did not quite tip their hands. While some of them have asked for the abolition of these nationwide orders in the past, they did not seem so safe on Thursday, especially after the Attorney General D. John Sauer had opened his argument that Trump was rightly so that the fourteenth change was misinterpreted for 127 years.

“This arrangement reflects the original importance of the fourteenth amendment, which guaranteed the children of former slaves, not the illegal foreigners or temporary visitors,” he argued.

He then said that the judges who temporarily implemented Trump's politics exceeded their authority in accordance with the constitution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked this question: If a new president decided to confiscate all weapons in the country, we would then have to “sit back and wait until every plaintiff is taken to court?”

Justice Elena Kagan Sauer follows this question: “Let's just assume, you are dead [Trump’s executive order] Would we let ourselves be done? “

When the Attorney General Sauer later stopped whether the administration to comply with a court ruling, the judiciary Amy Coney Barrett prevailed: “I properly understood it to say Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to not follow a precedent of the district court in New York because they may not agree to the opinion in New York Opinion? “

In response, Sauer said: “There are circumstances in which it is not a categorical practice.”

Other judges continued to press.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh asked a number of practical questions, such as: “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?”

“Bundes officials have to find out,” replied Sauer and asked Kavanaugh to ask: “How?”

Sauer said that the administration could request a documentary that show that the parents are legally in the country.

For all newborns? Asked Kavanaugh. Sauer replied: “We just don't know.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson threw: “Your argument seems to be transforming our judicial system into a Catch-me-you-can regime … where everyone has a lawyer and has to submit a lawsuit so that the government no longer violates people's rights.”

Sauer suggested that legal disputes could bring collective complaints instead of individual lawsuits, but the lawyer Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represents the states, replied: “An unprecedented chaos will produce on site.”

Judge Samuel Alito found that there are 680 district court judges in the country, and if all of them nationwide interference that could also cause chaos. But when considering, Alito did not seem to be satisfied with Sauer's idea that collecting lawsuits would be better.

“So the answer is that the practical problem is not solved,” said Alito, adding that if this is the case, “What is the meaning of this argument on universal occasions?”

Supreme judge John Roberts found that there may be advantages to give appeal courts enough time to decide on the merits of a case before the problem goes to the Supreme Court, which, as he stated, can happen pretty quickly in emergency cases.

A decision in this case is expected until early summer.