WASHINGTON - When the Supreme Court heard plans on ending citizenship with reproductive rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court could greatly promote the Trump administration’s muscle utilization of executive power.

The court has not actually used three cases before it to see whether Trump could fundamentally reinterpret the long-term implications of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, it will focus on the judge's power to block the national presidential policy.

Most legal experts say Trump’s plan to limit at least one person born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent law resident to reproductive citizenship may eventually be knocked down. The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.”

But for now, the Supreme Court (the conservative majority, including three Trump appointments, including three Trump appointments) only focuses on the question of whether low-court judges have the right to block the policy nationwide, as they have been done in different cases.

The administration and its allies issued a "universal ban" in judges, which hindered Trump's active use of executive power. Republicans in Congress quickly raised legislation on the issue, which was approved by the House last month. There was no vote in the Senate.

"The universal injunction issued by district court judges … continues to thwart the president's ability to implement the agenda," Justice Department official said on a phone call with reporters on Tuesday.

The official added that the administration sees such a ruling as a "direct attack" on the president's power.

The Justice Department said so far, 39 such rulings have been formulated before Trump's second term. Among other things, the ban prevented some federal funding cuts and fired by federal employees under the guidance of Elon Musk's government's efficiency ministry.

In other lawsuits, two courts blocked Trump's trans military ban nationwide before the Supreme Court intervened and allowed it to take effect.

The government has asked the court to limit the scope of the right-to-birth citizenship injunction so that they only apply to individuals in 22 states that file a lawsuit or may challenge Trump's execution order.

If the Supreme Court agrees, the Trump administration can also partially enforce the policy, even if the lawsuit continues, more people file lawsuits to obtain a ruling that applies to them.

"The birthright citizen case is a great example of jeopardy," said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who joined one of the legal challenges. "If you actually have to file a separate case for each plaintiff, you will limit the court's ability to declare the law and protect the people."

He said the Trump administration is seeking “restricted judicial oversight of illegal actions.”

The broad ban on presidential policy is a relatively new phenomenon, but not the only one targeting Trump. Similar rulings by the Obama and Biden administrations on issues such as immigration policy also constitute criticism.

A Congressional Research Service report found that there were 28 general bans in the Biden administration in four years and 86 general bans during the first Trump administration, although it is difficult to pinpoint the numbers exactly. The Justice Department previously reported that there were 19 such bans during the eight-year period of the Obama administration.

While all recent presidents have tried to use the executive power to circumvent the deadlock, Trump is particularly large, especially during his second term, which helps explain the massive bans against his administration.

In various circumstances, five of the six members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority raised concerns about the general ban and suggested that they should be curbed in some cases.

In the 2024 opinion, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: "This is an important issue that requires the attention of the court for some time."

The key question is whether the judge has the right to issue injunctions that go beyond the parties directly involved in the lawsuit.

Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, opposes the national ban and is cited in the Citizens' Court Documents of the Right to Birth.

He said in an interview that the general injunction “avoids normal legal proceedings” is partly because it does not allow legal issues fully fleshed out by different courts before they arrive at the Supreme Court, which has the final word.

He added: "The courts are not just because they are the first ones, so they can't decide on this issue for the country."

Bray said if the Supreme Court does contain the universal injunction, it will encourage lawyers to file class action lawsuits, including all those affected by a specific policy, which would be the appropriate mechanism.

Such lawsuits can be made by people directly affected by the orders of citizens of the right to birth (such as pregnant women entering the country illegally).

In recent years, the presidential committees of both sides have rushed to the Supreme Court when they were blocked nationwide, resulting in justices intervening faster than otherwise, and sometimes without a comprehensive briefing. This practice may change if the court limits the scope of the injunction.

Giancarlo Canaparo, a legal researcher at the Trump Allied Legacy Foundation, predicts that in some cases the power to restrict judges from issuing a universal injunction would reduce shares.

However, he added: "The lawsuit will still be carried out with as much vitality and speed as possible."