Brandon DrenonReporting from Washington DC
The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum.
Supporters say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration’s argument advocated for a “catch me if you can” justice system.
The other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws.
Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that in the birthright citizenship case there would be “chaos” in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.
Opponents argue that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious”.
Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping – the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.
Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.
Read more: What to know about the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case