On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a major case involving former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for most individuals born in the U.S. However, the Court declined to grant an immediate go-ahead for Trump’s policy to take effect.

Oral arguments are scheduled for May 15.

The case stems from Trump’s renewed push—early in his second term—to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts. Although the administration framed the request as a “modest” procedural matter, the implications are sweeping. A win could let Trump enforce a policy a lower court called “blatantly unconstitutional” across nearly the entire country.

The Supreme Court gave no explanation for taking the case, and no dissents were noted.

Trump has long been vocal in his frustration over court orders that stalled his agenda. While presidents from both parties have criticized broad injunctions, Trump has been especially aggressive in challenging them.

According to Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst and professor at Georgetown Law, “The administration is using a procedural argument to get its birthright citizenship policy implemented nationwide without a ruling on whether it's actually constitutional.”

The justices are expected to weigh whether district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions—an issue the Court has so far avoided even in less politically charged cases.

“If the Court uses this case to decide that issue,” Vladeck said, “it could let a widely criticized and likely unconstitutional policy take effect almost everywhere.”

Trump made ending birthright citizenship a central theme in his reelection campaign, despite over a century of legal precedent affirming that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen under the 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, he signed an executive order barring recognition of citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.

That order triggered a wave of legal challenges. Federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts swiftly blocked the policy. These injunctions were upheld by appeals courts, with support from Democratic-appointed judges. Trump appealed all three rulings to the Supreme Court on March 13.

In January, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, temporarily halted the policy, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." Later, he issued a preliminary injunction. Similar rulings followed in Maryland and Massachusetts, with plaintiffs including states, immigrant rights groups, and individuals.

Though the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case doesn’t address the merits, it could have significant short-term impact—similar to how the Court allowed a Texas abortion law to take effect in 2021 before eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.

A key precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), upheld the principle of birthright citizenship. While modern courts haven’t signaled interest in revisiting that decision, some conservatives argue the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause leaves room for reinterpretation—especially regarding children born to undocumented immigrants.

The Justice Department contends that nationwide injunctions improperly block policies for everyone—even those not involved in the lawsuits. While some justices and presidents have criticized that broad power, critics argue that in a case as consequential as this, a nationwide block is essential to avoid unequal application of citizenship laws.