The House Budget Committee voted late Sunday night to advance President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” after several GOP hard-liners blocked the measure from moving forward Friday.
The vote passed down party lines 17-16, with four Republicans voting present.
Conservative Reps. Chip Roy, Andrew Clyde, Josh Brecheen and Ralph Norman all voted present — a change from their no votes on Friday.
Next, the Rules Committee will hold its meeting midweek, teeing up a vote on the floor by the end of the week.
The vote’s passage in the House Budget Committee comes after House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Sunday that “talks have gone great.”
Sources told ABC News ahead of the vote that lawmakers had not yet reached a deal on several sticking points related to SALT and Medicaid reform.
Key components of the bill look to provide major tax breaks by cutting spending elsewhere, including hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicaid.
The House Freedom Caucus released a statement after the vote, saying, that the bill “does not yet meet the moment.”
“As written, the bill continues increased deficits in the near term with possible savings years down the road that may never materialize,” the caucus said on X.
A group of Budget Committee hard-liners on Friday voted to block the package from moving forward — partly over concerns with a starting date for Medicaid work requirements — defying Trump and Republican leaders. As the legislation is currently written, Medicaid requirements take effect in 2029. However, conservatives are pushing for the requirements to start much earlier, as soon as 2027.
“Some of the states have — it takes them some time. We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.
What about the Senate?
Johnson said both chambers have been working in “close coordination” and hopes the Senate won’t alter the House bill.
“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.
Johnson added that Congress must pass the package by July 4, especially given the mid-July “deadline” to address the debt limit to avoid a default.
“We’ve got to get this done and get it to the president’s desk by that big celebration on Independence Day. And I’m convinced that we can,” he added.
Reaction to Moody’s downgrade over debt
On Friday, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. government from a gold-standard Aaa to Aa1 rating, citing its failure to stop a rising tide of debt.
Moody’s is the last of the three major rating agencies to lower the federal government’s credit. Standard & Poor’s downgraded in 2011 and Fitch Ratings followed in 2023.
“Moody’s is not incorrect, but that’s why that emphasizes the very need for the legislation we’re talking about, historic spending cuts. I mean, this will help to change the trajectory for the U.S. economy and send that message of stability to our allies and even our enemies around the world,” Johnson said. “President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” will be passed, and that will be the key to turning this thing around. We have to get this done, and it just shows more of the urgency of why we’re doing exactly what we’re doing with the legislation.”
LONDON — President Donald Trump is expected to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin at around 10 a.m. ET on Monday, as the White House continues its push for an end to Moscow’s 3-year-old invasion of Ukraine after last week’s peace talks in Istanbul, Turkey.
“The subjects of the call will be, stopping the ‘bloodbath’ that is killing, on average, more than 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, and trade,” Trump wrote in a post to his Truth Social website on Saturday.
“I will then be speaking to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and then, with President Zelenskyy, various members of NATO,” Trump added.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed to journalists on Monday that the call would take place at 5 p.m. Moscow time — 10 a.m. ET — the state-run Tass news agency reported.
Renewed direct contact with Putin — the last publicly known direct phone call between the two presidents took place in February — comes after Trump’s hopes for peace talks progress in Istanbul were scuppered, Putin having declined to attend despite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s invitation to do so.
The Istanbul talks were the first known meeting between representatives of Moscow and Kyiv since spring 2022, when the Turkish city hosted the final round of unsuccessful peace negotiations to end Russia’s unfolding invasion.
Once it became clear Putin would not attend, Trump told reporters of the peace effort, “Nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together, okay?”
“And obviously he wasn’t going to go,” Trump added. “He was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn’t going if I wasn’t there. And I don’t believe anything’s going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together, but we’re going to have to get it solved, because too many people are dying.”
Trump’s repeated threats of further sanctions on Russia have so far failed to precipitate any notable shift in Moscow’s war goals — which, according to public statements by officials, still include Ukraine’s ceding of four regions — which Russian forces do not fully control — plus Crimea, as well as a permanent block on Kyiv’s accession to NATO.
Putin said Sunday that any peace deal with Ukraine should “eliminate the causes that triggered this crisis” and “guarantee Russia’s security.”
Kyiv and its European backers are still pushing for a full 30-day ceasefire, during which time they say peace negotiations can take place. Moscow has thus far refused to support the proposal, suggesting that all Western military aid to Ukraine would have to stop as part of any ceasefire.
Contacts between U.S., Russian and Ukrainian officials continued after the end of the talks in Istanbul. On Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said Rubio welcomed a prisoner exchange agreement reached during the Istanbul meeting and emphasized Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire.
Vice President JD Vance also met with Zelenskyy at the Vatican on Saturday, following Pope Leo XIV’s offer to host a bilateral meeting.
After the meeting, Zelenskyy wrote on X that he had “reaffirmed that Ukraine is ready to be engaged in real diplomacy and underscored the importance of a full and unconditional ceasefire as soon as possible.”
“We have also touched upon the need for sanctions against Russia, bilateral trade, defense cooperation, battlefield situation and upcoming prisoners exchange,” Zelenskyy continued. “Pressure is needed against Russia until they are eager to stop the war.”
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha on Monday wrote on X that the Istanbul meeting highlighted a “stark difference” between Moscow and Kyiv. “Ukraine is forward-looking, focused on the full and immediate ceasefire to kickstart the real peace process. To the contrary, Russia is completely focused on the past, rejecting the ceasefire and instead talking constantly about the 2022 Istanbul meetings, attempting to make the same absurd demands as three years ago.”
“This is yet another reason why pressure on Russia must be increased,” Sybiha added. “Moscow must now understand the consequences of impeding the peace process.”
Meanwhile, long-range strikes by both sides continued. On Sunday night into Monday morning, Ukraine’s air force said Russia launched 112 drones into the country, 76 of which were shot down or jammed. Damage was reported in five regions of Ukraine, the air force said in a post to Telegram.
Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Monday morning that its forces had downed 35 Ukrainian drones overnight.
Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to a statement from his office released Sunday afternoon.
“Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement read.
“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management. The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians,” the statement concluded.
A Gleason score of 9 indicates a high-grade, aggressive form of prostate cancer. It further indicates that the cancer cells look very different from normal prostate cells and are likely to grow and spread rapidly.
This places the cancer in the Grade Group 5, the highest-risk category, which is associated with a greater likelihood of metastasis and a more challenging prognosis. Yet despite the cancer’s apparent aggressiveness, its hormone-sensitive nature offers a viable treatment pathway, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Reaction to Biden’s diagnosis started to roll in as the news broke.
President Donald Trump said he was “saddened” by Biden’s diagnosis.
“Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis. We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.
Former President Barack Obama posted a sincere message on X on Sunday evening, saying, “Michelle and I are thinking of the entire Biden family. Nobody has done more to find breakthrough treatments for cancer in all its forms than Joe, and I am certain he will fight this challenge with his trademark resolve and grace. We pray for a fast and full recovery.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris posted on X that she and her husband Doug Emhoff were keeping Biden and his family in their prayers.
“Joe is a fighter — and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership,” she wrote.
“Chasten and I are keeping him, and the entire Biden family, in our prayers for strength and healing,” Buttigieg said in a post on X.
On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Biden confirmed to ABC News that a small nodule was found in the former president’s prostate after “a routine physical exam.”
The discovery of the nodule “necessitated further evaluation,” the spokesperson said.
In February 2023, while serving as president, Biden had a lesion removed from his chest that was cancerous. Before entering office, Biden had several non-melanoma skin cancers removed with Mohs surgery.
“As expected, the biopsy confirmed that the small lesion was basal cell carcinoma,” White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor said at the time. “All cancerous tissue was successfully removed. … No further treatment is required.”
Biden’s health had been under scrutiny since before he dropped out of the presidential race in 2024, giving way to then-Vice President Kamala Harris to top the Democratic presidential ticket.
In an appearance on ABC’s “The View” earlier this month, both Biden and former first lady Dr. Jill Biden generally pushed back against the slate of new books from reporters claiming that Biden was dealing with cognitive decline at the end of his presidency.
“They are wrong. There’s nothing to sustain that,” Biden said.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second-leading cause of cancer death among men in the U.S., according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
An estimated 313,780 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed this year, representing 15.4% of all new cancer cases, with an estimated 35,770 deaths from prostate cancer this year, representing 5.8% of all cancer deaths, according to the NIH. The five-year relative survival rate from prostate cancer, meaning the percentage of people alive five years after diagnosis, is roughly 98%, the NIH says.
Prostate cancer in general usually grows very slowly. While finding and treating it before symptoms occur may not improve men’s health or help them live longer it is generally a more treatable type of cancer, even when it has spread.
-ABC News’ Eric Strauss contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, extended its injunction that temporarily bars the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation and remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve the question of how much time should be afforded for detainees to contest their removals.
The majority said the government did not provide migrants targeted under the wartime authority with enough time or information to contest their cases.
“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the majority wrote in the decision. “But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case.”
The justices did not reach the question of the lawfulness of the removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously,” they wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration asked the court to lift its injunction, arguing that the migrants it intended to deport under the act were dangerous.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A vote on the mega-bill aimed at advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda failed in the House Budget Committee Friday afternoon amid objections from hard-liners, halting the bill’s progress at the committee.
Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde, Josh Brecheen, Lloyd Smucker, Ralph Norman and Chip Roy all voted against clearing the bill out of committee — defying Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson. The group complained, in part, that the bulk of savings in the legislation don’t take effect until after Trump leaves office.
The committee vote failed with just 16 lawmakers in favor, and 21 voting against.
The move is a setback for Johnson and Trump, who earlier called on the holdouts to fall in line and unite behind the bill — with Trump saying in a social media post that “we don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party.”
Norman said he wants commitments from leadership on changes to Medicaid work requirements, which won’t take effect until 2029 and imposes more frequent eligibility checks for beneficiaries.
“I am tired of smoke and mirrors,” Norman said Friday. “This isn’t a grandstand. I don’t need to grandstand.”
The ordeal has been yet another test of Johnson’s speakership as he works to placate the hard-liners and unify the factions of his conference.
House Republican leaders will now continue to negotiate with holdouts behind closed doors, and the Budget Committee will reconvene on Monday. While the delay is not ideal, there is still a chance that the bill could clear the House before the Memorial Day recess.
The House Freedom Caucus said it is prepared to continue negotiations over the weekend after several of them blocked the more than 1,000-page mega-bill from advancing.
“We are not going anywhere and we will continue to work through the weekend,” the group posted on X.
Prior to the failed vote, Majority Leader Steve Scalise explained that the bill’s timeline enables the administration to “actually create a process to implement” some of the provisions in the bill.
“We’ve got a pretty clear idea of what the final pieces are, and we’re working through those right now,” Scalise said. “We’re all in agreement on the reforms we want to make. We want to have work requirements. We want to phase out a lot of these green subsidies. You know, how quickly can you get it done? And it’s not as quickly as saying you just turn it off tomorrow.”
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, another Republican on the Budget Committee, sympathized with Norman’s “fair” concerns about delays to implementing Medicaid reforms, but he called the consensus product of 11 markups “a good start” and stressed that the Senate will have an opportunity to improve the bill.
“There’s a lot of good pieces in this legislation. You know, there’s pieces that I feel like we left ourselves short. We could have made bigger reforms, cut more spending, but at the end of the day, this is going to get the economy growing for the American people,” he said. “I think we are going to get there.”
“I think this is an important piece to move forward as it is, because we need to get the economy back on track,” Stutzman added.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is weighing in on House Republicans’ mega-bill aimed at advancing his legislative agenda Friday morning — calling on his party to unite behind it despite objections from hard-liners.
As several hard-liners signaled that they would derail the tax and budget measure over concerns that it adds to a bloated national debt, Trump called on them to fall in line.
“We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!” Trump posted on his social media channel Friday morning.
The president said that country will “suffer greatly” without the legislation and said Republicans “must unite.”
The president’s message comes as the House Republicans — particularly Speaker Mike Johnson — work to get the more than 1,000-page “Big Beautiful Bill Act” back on track as those holdouts complicate advancing the package out of the House Budget Committee as it convenes Friday morning.
Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen, who appeared skeptical on Thursday, said on social media that “we have a duty to know the true cost of this legislation before advancing it. If we are to operate in truth, we must have true numbers — even if that means taking some more time to obtain that truth.”
They are also working to strike a consensus on the SALT caps — the amount of state and local taxes that can be written off on federal tax returns — as moderates draw a red line opposing the proposed $30,000 cap on those deductions.
The vote is yet another test of Johnson’s speakership as he works to placate the hard-liners and unify the factions of his conference.
On Thursday, Johnson spoke with the holdouts and said budget negotiations are still ongoing.
“Keep this thing moving forward,” he said of the more than 1,000-page mega-bill.
Johnson said Friday that he is keeping President Donald Trump up to date with the latest developments with the massive package and that the president is excited about the House’s “forward progress.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are working to get their mega-bill encompassing Trump’s legislative agenda back on track Friday morning — a day after hard-liners in the party signaled that they would derail it over concerns that it adds to a bloated national debt.
The GOP holdouts could complicate advancing the package out of the House Budget Committee as it convenes Friday morning.
Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen, who appeared skeptical on Thursday, said on social media that “we have a duty to know the true cost of this legislation before advancing it. If we are to operate in truth, we must have true numbers — even if that means taking some more time to obtain that truth.”
They are also working to strike a consensus on the SALT caps — the amount of state and local taxes that can be written off on federal tax returns — as moderates draw a red line opposing the proposed $30,000 cap on those deductions.
The vote is yet another test of Speaker Mike Johnson’s speakership as he works to placate the hard-liners and unify the factions of his conference.
On Thursday, Johnson spoke with the holdouts and said budget negotiations are still ongoing.
“Keep this thing moving forward,” he said of the more than 1,000-page mega-bill.
Johnson said Friday that he is keeping President Donald Trump up to date with the latest developments with the massive package and that the president is excited about the House’s “forward progress.” Johnson said he has not asked Trump for help whipping hard-liners in support of the bill.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump lashed out Friday against ex-FBI director James Comey over an Instagram post that contained an image that top Trump officials claimed was a threat.
In a now-deleted Instagram post, Comey showed a photo of “8647” written in seashells in sand, with the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”
Some far-right allies of President Trump, including Laura Loomer, have alleged that Comey is calling for violence against President Trump.
To “86” something, however, has fairly broad interpretations as a slang term — and can simply mean to nix or “get rid”of’ something.
Comey says he figured the message was political, but didn’t realize it called for violence against Trump.
“It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind,” Comey said in another post on Instagram.
Trump, however, told Fox News Friday that he wasn’t buying Comey’s explanation.
“He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination,” the president said.
Trump fired Comey in his first administration and the president claimed Comey still had an axe to grind.
“Well, he apologized because he was hit — he’s a very bad guy,” Trump said.
The president did not take a position on whether or not Comey should be investigated, but deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Thursday in an X post that the U.S. Secret Service is looking into Comey’s post.
“Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — A mega-bill encompassing President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda appears to be in jeopardy as several Republican hardliners on Thursday signaled their opposition to advancing the package out of the House Budget Committee later this week.
“I am voting no,” Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said Thursday afternoon, citing concerns about the bill adding to a bloated national debt.
With Republican Rep. Brandon Gill expected to be absent, the GOP can only afford to lose one vote in the House Budget Committee to advance the bill. The committee is slated to convene Friday morning.
Norman, who has had his arm twisted to fall in line on more than one occasion, said fellow Republican Rep. Chip Roy plans to vote no and “thinks” Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia will vote against advancing the bill as well. Oklahoma Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen, a member of the House Budget Committee, appeared skeptical about the bill moving forward.
“We have a duty to know the true cost of this legislation before advancing it. If we are to operate in truth, we must have true numbers — even if that means taking some more time to obtain that truth,” he said on X, echoing similar concerns raised by Roy.
Republicans will “go back to work” if the bill fails out of committee Friday, Norman said.
Should the bill make it out of committee, Speaker Mike Johnson still faces a tough road ahead as the Republican majority can withstand three no votes from within their ranks before losing sufficient support for passage. The effort to pass the Trump-backed bill is another crucial test of Johnson’s speakership as he works to unify his divided conference.
Earlier Thursday, Johnson held a high-stakes meeting to hash out the remaining sticking points related to Medicaid and tax reform — key components of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — that have so far prevented leadership from locking down sufficient support for the bill’s passage.
Johnson told reporters after the meeting that Republicans had “a very thoughtful discussion,” adding that he plans to work through the weekend to come to what’s been an elusive consensus on the SALT caps — the amount of state and local taxes that can be written off on federal tax returns — as moderates draw a red line opposing the proposed $30,000 cap on those deductions.
“I think everyone would agree that it was productive and that we are moving the ball forward,” Johnson said, adding he is striving “to meet the equilibrium point that everyone can be satisfied with.”
On Thursday morning, House Republicans formally unveiled the text of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — a 1,116-page mega-bill.
Johnson said earlier that he’s not budging on the Memorial Day target to dispatch the mega-bill from the House.
Johnson claimed Republicans are aiming to pass the package in a “deficit-neutral way” when pressed if the package will add trillions of dollars to the deficit.
“If you do more on SALT, you have to find more in savings,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments over President Donald Trump’s emergency request to roll back nationwide injunctions blocking his executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The rare May sitting of the court sets the stage for a decision by this summer on whether Trump can move forward with plans to limit U.S. citizenship only to children born on American soil to lawful permanent residents.
The case is also expected to address the legality of individual district court judges single-handedly blocking a presidential policy nationwide. Trump is seeking to dissolve judicial orders preventing mass federal layoffs, funding freezes, and expedited deportation protocols.
For more than a century, courts and the government have interpreted the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause to apply to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship status of a child’s parents.
The Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer kicked off the first Supreme Court oral argument over Trump’s second-term policies by arguing that the ability of one district judge to issue a nationwide order creates a fundamentally unfair legal playing field for the government.
“Our primary contention is that the citizenship clause related to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens who weren’t even present as a discrete class at that time,” he told the justices.
Sauer said that national injunctions force district judges to rush their “high stakes, low information decisions,” encourage forum shopping, and prevent the “percolation of novel and difficult legal questions.”
“They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere,” said Sauer, who last year argued on behalf of Trump in a personal capacity to push for presidential immunity.
His claim was immediately met with skepticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who suggested that such a theory would not only limit the ability of the district court but also the Supreme Court from issuing nationwide relief.
“That makes no sense whatsoever,” she said before making an analogy to when the balance of power shifts in Washington.
“When a new president orders that because there’s so much gun violence going on in the country, and he comes in and he says, ‘I have the right to take away the guns from everyone,’ and he sends out the military to seize everyone’s guns. We and the courts have to sit back and wait until every name plaintiff gets or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?” she asked.
On the issue of the legality of Trump’s executive order to limit U.S. citizenship only to children born on American soil to lawful permanent residents, Sotomayor was clear on where she stood. The order, she said, was unlawful.
“As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents, and you are claiming that … both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally violating those holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said.
Both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer in a series of exchanges over whether eliminating nationwide injunctions could create a situation where unlawful executive orders are in place for too long a time before the Supreme Court can weigh in to rule on their legality.
“General Sauer, are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’re no way to [stop the EO nationwide] expeditiously?” Barrett asked.
Sauer answered stating that using the normal process of the courts and applying clear cut Supreme Court precedent could ultimately settle such issues quickly.
The exchange came as Justice Kagan questioned whether the impact of abolishing nationwide injunctions would effectively inject more chaos in the court system by requiring individual plaintiffs — like those subject to having their citizenship revoked by Trump’s birthright EO — to file piecemeal lawsuits in courts across the country.
Sotomayor also pushed back against Sauer’s arguments that the Supreme Court would benefit from the “percolation” of lower courts issuing opinions that would help the high court decide weighty issues over actions taken by the administration.
“We have most … courts who’ve percolated this issue and said, ‘You’re violating precedent, not only precedent, but the plain meaning of the 14th [Amendment] of the Constitution,” she said.
“Respectfully, I think what we have are lower courts making snap judgments on the merits that ignore the fundamental principle of the 14th amendment — that it was about giving citizenship to the children of slaves, not to the children of illegal immigrants,” Sauer answered.
But some of the justices suggested that the impact of limiting nationwide injunctions might be bearable. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Supreme Court has gotten better at hearing cases “much more expeditiously,” referencing how a legal challenge related to TikTok made its way through the court in a matter of months.
“We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Justice Clarence Thomas added.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that preventing federal judges from issuing nationwide orders would essentially create a “Catch Me If You Can” system of justice in which individual citizens can only protect their rights if they have the resources to file lawsuits.
“I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law,” she said.
Sauer argued that current system of nationwide injunction instead forces the Trump administration to race from court to court to win every case challenging their policies, citing the flurry of lawsuits and injunctions blocking the Pentagon’s transgender service member ban.
“I think the ‘Catch Me If You Can’ problem operates in the opposite direction, where we have the government racing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction having to sort of clear the table in order to implement a new policy,” he said.
The justice system, he argued, should work more slowly and allow the “percolation” of novel legal issues rather than rush to judgement, but Jackson pushed back, saying that delays could enable the enforcement of unlawful policies.
“If the government is saying no lower court can completely enjoin it, it actually means that the government just keeps on doing the purportedly unlawful thing, and it delays the ability for this court to reach the underlying issue,” she said.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order unilaterally declaring that only newborns whose parents have permanent legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be citizens.
“This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained during a February briefing.
Three different sets of plaintiffs sued to block the order, including a group of 22 states, immigrant advocacy groups, and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children would be affected.
“Birthright citizenship is at the core of our Nation’s foundational precept that all people born on our soil are created equal, regardless of their parentage,” attorneys for the immigrant advocates wrote in legal briefs.
An estimated 150,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to parents who are not legal permanent residents, according to government data.
“Instead of the right to full participation and belonging in their home country — the United States — these children will be forced to live in the shadow,” the states warned in court filings, “under the constant risk of deportation while the appeals run their course.”
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state — and three federal appeals court panels — have issued nationwide injunctions keeping the Trump policy on hold during litigation, concluding that it very likely violates the Constitution and high court precedent.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here,” said Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington during a January hearing in the case. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court directly addressed the question of citizenship for children born to non-citizens on U.S. soil, ruling in the landmark case U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that they are Americans under the law.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray for the 6-2 majority. “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”
The issue arrives back at the high court in an unusual posture.
Neither side has briefed the justices on the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, the primary dispute is over the scope of injunctions issued by individual district court judges.
“It focuses only on whether it is appropriate for courts to issue nationwide injunctions against the President’s egregiously unconstitutional executive order, as opposed to remedies limited to people directly involved in the litigation or those living in states that have sued the government,” said Ilya Somin, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.
The Trump administration has complained that judges should only be allowed to block a contested policy insofar as it impacts the actual plaintiffs who brought the case — not block it universally.
“Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” acting solicitor general Sarah Harris wrote in the government’s application to the court.
Many of the administration’s high-profile attempts to reshape the federal government, sharply curtail federal spending, transform immigration policy, and limit protections for LGBTQ people have been blocked by nationwide injunctions issued by district courts.
Justice Department attorneys from administrations of both political parties have long complained about the overuse of nationwide injunctions and alleged incursion on executive branch power. The court may use this case to articulate parameters for when such sweeping injunctions are warranted and when they are not.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris said, calling on the justices to narrow the injunctions applied to the birthright citizenship order.
Immigrant advocates, civil rights organizations, and Democratic state attorneys general have warned that blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship in some places but not others — or, exempting a small group of plaintiffs but not others — would create chaos.
“A situation where Trump’s order is in force for some people, but not others (or, alternatively, in some states but not others), creates obvious confusion and anomalies,” he said, “especially when it comes to a policy (citizenship rules) that is supposed to be uniform throughout the nation.”
Some legal scholars say it may be impossible for the court to address the question of nationwide injunctions without also resolving the underlying dispute over Trump’s attempt to redefine birthright citizenship.
“They’re going to have to address the whole thing,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. “The only way to avoid the scope of the injunction question is to rule on the merits. I believe they’re going to rule against Trump. He gets maybe one or two votes but not much more than that.”
A decision in the case is expected by early summer.
ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
