WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court weighed on Thursday whether President Donald Trump was allowed to fundamentally reinterpret the Constitution’s Guarantee of Citizenship with Reproductive Rights, at least to some extent, while the lawsuit continues.

In an unusual move, the court heard oral debates over a series of urgent requests from the Trump administration aimed at limiting the scope of a nationwide ban that almost blocked the plan when it was announced in January.

A decision with the administration will not only promote Trump’s birthright citizen advice, but will also help the administration implement other policies through enforcement actions, many of which have also been blocked nationwide by lower court judges.

These judges have not agreed to raise the bigger legal question, that Trump’s plan is comparable to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and bound by their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.”

The long-standing interpretation of this provision has been understood by generations of Americans, including left and right legal scholars, which are American citizens, and that anyone who is a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, including some smaller exceptions, including the children of diplomats.

As part of Trump's hard-working immigration policy, he wants to limit at least one person who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent U.S. resident to reproductive citizenship.

According to historical understanding of the 14th Amendment, every court that ruled the plan so far has blocked it. Trump filed three emergency applications in the Supreme Court in an attempt to narrow down the injunction issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington.

The Trump administration complained to judge officials that they issued a "universal ban" that blocked various policies formulated in the first few months of the president's tenure. The Justice Department said 39 such rulings have been made, including many issues, including the government's ban on trans people serving in the military, and the Supreme Court recently allowed this to take effect.

Trump relies heavily on active executive orders to develop his agenda rather than seeking legislation for regulatory actions by Congress or federal agencies.

The government's argument is that federal judges simply do not have the authority to issue broad rulings that affect people outside the litigants. As a result, when a judge believes that government policy is illegal, the decision should only apply to the individual plaintiff or entity prosecuted.

In response, the challenger said that the national ban is appropriate on issues like the right to birth citizens, partly because it is crucial to have unity in this fundamental right.

Even if some national injunctions are unreasonable, the Supreme Court should not use the citizen case of reproductive rights to curb the ability of judges to issue them fully, the plaintiff’s lawyers believe.

The government has asked the court to limit the injunctions to individuals or organizations prosecuting them, and it is possible that 22 countries led by New Jersey and Washington will file lawsuits on birthright citizenship.

According to the measures taken by the court, the proposal may be effective in more than half of the U.S. rather than other states, or for anyone who has not been prosecuted or who is not an immigration advocacy organization CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Program.

If the court approves the government’s demands in some form, people affected by the executive order may have to file their own lawsuits or join a class action lawsuit.

All this is done in a common agreement among legal experts, that when the case finally reaches the judge in the case, the Supreme Court will eventually rule on Trump.

Five of the six members of the conservative majority in the court have raised concerns that individual judges have the power to prevent the president from acting nationwide in recent years, a power traditionally reserved for the Supreme Court.

Such a ruling has hindered not only the Trump administration, but also the recent democratic administration.