U.S. President Donald Trump ended his right to birth citizenship Thursday by ending his right to birth citizenship in the U.S. Supreme Court, a case that could help further the agenda on immigration and other issues.

The case asks whether the lower judge should be able to block the presidential orders of the entire country, as was done in this case. When they considered both sides, the justices did not seem to have reached a consensus.

The Deputy Attorney General argued that lower courts held their power, saying that the power should be limited.

Meanwhile, the governor of New Jersey represents a group of state debates - with Trump's tolerance, will establish a piecemeal of citizenship.

Attorney Jeremy Feigenbaum believes that this will cause "ground chaos."

It is not clear when the court will make a ruling. If it agrees with Trump, then he can continue his extensive use of the execution order to make good promises on campaign commitments without waiting for Congress to approve the courts - limited checks.

During Thursday’s two-hour hearing, judges across the ideological field seemed to be working on solving two issues.

Questioning the power of lower courts to block presidential orders nationwide. The Justice also considered the merits of the right-to-birth citizen order itself - a 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, critics argue.

Deputy Attorney General D John Sauer argues on behalf of the Trump administration that the current system “requires judges to make hasty, high-risk, low-information decisions.”

Justice BBQ Sol for more than an hour, and freelance attorney Elena Kagan noted that the government lost on the issue of birthright citizenship in every lower court. "Why did you bring this case to us?" she asked.

At the hearing, Thor said a class action lawsuit – allowing a large number of plaintiffs to sue together – could provide a way. But the process is usually time-consuming and does not provide relief in emergencies, he said.

Judge Samuel Alito, one of the court's most prominent conservatives, appears to criticize the lower court's power to issue injunctions nationwide.

He said: “Sometimes they are wrong sometimes.

Feigenbaum, on behalf of the state that accused the executive order of harm, argued that the situation in connection with the Trump administration would be unrealistic and unconstitutional.

He believes that the option of eliminating the national ban could create a piecemealing civic system in which a person can be in position in one state but lose it when crossing another.

Feigenbaum said the standard would have a harmful impact on government benefits such as Medicaid, immigration enforcement and maintaining accurate statistics allocations.

"Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed U.S. nationality to vary depending on the state where someone lives," Fedenbaum said.

When the justice asked the lawyers questions, a large number of protesters gathered outside to express opposition to Trump's immigration policy.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who represents the House Speaker, joined the protesters outside and read aloud from the U.S. Constitution.

“It’s about the right to birth, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process,” she said.

It is unusual for the Supreme Court to hold a hearing in May, with no indication of when a ruling could be decided. Trump appointed three of nine judges in the conservative majority court in his first term.

Many legal experts say the president has no right to end his reproductive citizenship because it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So even if Trump wins the current case, he may still have to deal with other legal challenges.

Specifically, the 14th Amendment stipulates that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens."

In the executive order, Trump argued that the term “its jurisdiction” means that automatic citizenship does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants or people in the country for the time being.

However, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington issued a nationwide or universal injunction that prohibits the enforcement of the order.

In turn, the ban prompted the Trump administration to argue that lower courts are beyond their power.

"The universal ban has reached the percentage of the pandemic since the incumbent government began," the government said in a court application in March. "Members of the court have long recognized the need to address the legality of the universal ban."

Earlier this week, Justice Department officials told reporters that the court ban “substantially blocked” Trump’s ability to enforce his policy agenda and that the administration saw it as a “direct attack” on the presidency.

The Supreme Court heard cases stemmed from three separate lawsuits, including immigration advocates and 22 states.

The Trump administration has asked the court to rule that the injunction can only apply to immigrants or plaintiff states designated in the case - the administration can at least partially execute Trump's orders even as the legal battle continues.

The Justice Department said nearly 40 different court injunctions have been filed since the start of the second Trump administration.

In another case, two lower courts prevented the Trump administration from enforcing a military transgender ban, although the Supreme Court eventually stepped in and allowed the policy to be enforced.

The ending – even partial birthright citizenship, which could affect thousands of children in the United States, one of the lawsuits argues that it would “impose second-class status,” a generation born and only live in the United States.

Alex Cuic, an immigration attorney and professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that the potential end of birthright citizenship could force some of these children to become undocumented or even “stateless.”

“There is no guarantee that the country where parents come from will bring them back,” he said. “It’s not even clear where the government can expel them.”