The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case on May 15 that could dramatically reshape the power of federal judges and have sweeping implications for immigration policy and executive authority. The case consolidates three legal challenges to a Trump administration executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants.

At issue is not only the legality of the order itself but also whether district court judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that block federal policy from being enforced anywhere in the country, even beyond the plaintiffs involved in the case.

Nationwide injunctions have become a powerful and controversial tool in recent years, used by both conservative and liberal judges to stop presidential policies from taking effect. Since President Trump returned to office in January, his administration has been met with a wave of lawsuits, many resulting in injunctions that have delayed or derailed key parts of his agenda, particularly around immigration enforcement.

In March, the administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking for limits on the scope of these injunctions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that nationwide injunctions had reached “epidemic proportions,” noting that while the Biden administration faced 14 such orders in its first three years, the Trump administration encountered 15 in just one month.

The Supreme Court’s decision could significantly curb or uphold the practice of issuing universal injunctions, thereby affecting not just the question of birthright citizenship, but also future challenges to federal policy on a wide range of issues—from healthcare to environmental regulations.

With oral arguments scheduled unusually late in the term, the Court appears to recognize the urgency and far-reaching consequences of the case. A ruling is expected by the end of the current term in late June or early July.