From the New York Times, I'm Michael Bobarro. This is the Daily.

On Thursday, the Trump administration's effort to abolish birthright citizenship

finally ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

Today, my colleague, Adam Liptack,

on the White House's unusual legal strategy for defending its plan and what it may mean for the future of presidential power.

It's Friday, May 16th.

Adam, always a distinct pleasure to have you on the show.

It's always good to be with you, Michael.

Let's talk about this case that was argued on Thursday before the Supreme Court.

It's genuinely intriguing because it's not directly about

President Trump's history-making decision to try to outlaw birthright citizenship, but it's not

not about his effort to ban birthright citizenship.

So just explain that.

It's really about a threshold question. Three different federal district court judges have taken a look at the order

that President Trump signed the day he took office, purporting to do away with birthright citizenship,

that is the constitutional concept, that if you're

born in the United States, you're automatically a citizen. And they found that that executive order

was unconstitutional. They issued an injunction saying so. And all three of the injunctions did not

only say to the parties in the case that they win and they get the

benefit of the court's ruling. These judges did more. They issued nationwide injunctions.

They said the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional everywhere in the country.

They immediately shut it down.

...