Welcome to the News Hour. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most

consequential cases of the year, the ability for President Trump to carry out his executive

order ending birthright citizenship. That's the constitutionally protected right of citizenship

for those born in the United States, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

The central question in this case, though, is the limits of judicial power, namely universal

injunctions which allow a federal judge to issue a nationwide block to executive orders.

In recent months, several district court judges have used nationwide injunctions to pause a number of the Trump

administration's policies, including an executive order which seeks to end birthright citizenship.

Today, the government argued those judges are overstepping their constitutional authority.

Earlier, President Trump weighed in, posting on social media, quote,

birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves, and it had nothing to do with

illegal immigration for people wanting to scam our country.

We will sort that out in a moment.

But outside the court today, a group of attorneys general who are challenging the

president's order said the question of birthright citizenship has long been settled.

157 years ago we came together as a nation post-Civil War and said never again,

were we going to debate whether babies born on American soil are entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

And contrary to what the United States is saying,

citizenship doesn't turn on or turn off when you cross state lines.

And joining us now to discuss today's arguments are Amanda Frost,

Professor of Immigration and Citizenship Law at the University of Virginia,

and Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUS blog,

...