Array
Curious indeed. The Trump administration had petitioned the Supreme Court for stays in three different challenges on Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The easiest action to take would have been to ignore the requests and let the cases play out, likely well into the next Supreme Court term.
Instead, the court decided to consolidate the cases and grant cert on the merits:
Consideration of the application (24A884) for partial stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A885) for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A886) for partial stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The applications are set for oral argument at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
The New York Times also finds this a little surprising:
The brief order by the justices was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as is typical in such emergency cases. But the move is a sign that the justices consider the matter significant enough that they would immediately consider it, rather than letting it play out in lower courts.
The justices announced they would defer any consideration of the government’s request to lift a nationwide pause on the policy until they heard oral arguments, which they set for May 15.
That means that the executive order, which would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents, will remain paused in every state while the court considers the case.
True, but as the next paragraph explains, that was also the status after the lower-court rulings. The Supreme Court could have left it alone to achieve that outcome by default:
In three emergency applications, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to find that lower courts had erred in imposing bans on the policy that extended beyond the parties involved in the litigation.
