The Supreme Court grappled with the issue of eliminating judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions as the court heard arguments Thursday in an emergency appeal arising from President Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Though several conservative justices expressed concerns during the two-and-a-half hour argument that judges are overstepping their authority by not limiting their rulings to the specific parties suing, it remained unclear whether the administration had convinced a majority to claw back the practice.

The decision is poised to greatly impact Trump’s ability to enact his executive orders by potentially removing a key tool that plaintiffs have employed in dozens of lawsuits to try to stop Trump’s agenda, ranging from actions over federal grant freezes to transgender troops to birthright citizenship. 

"We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” said conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime skeptic of such rulings.

As the challengers raised concerns that such a ruling could necessitate thousands of individual lawsuits, several conservative justices floated that the plaintiffs could still band together to bring a class action.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s second appointee to the court, at one point said class actions “provide a mechanism for what’s needed here.”

“I’m sure they’re being prepared now,” he joked.

Trump imposed the birthright citizenship restrictions as one of his “Day 1” executive orders. The order would limit birthright citizenship to only those who have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status. 

Those restrictions upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee for people born on U.S. soil, which the Supreme Court and most legal scholars have long interpreted to include only a few narrow exceptions, like the children of diplomats. 

"This case is very different from a lot of our nationwide injunction cases, in which many of us have expressed frustration at the way district courts are doing their business,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, both members of the court’s liberal wing, expressed deep doubts about the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order during the argument. They raised concerns that not providing immediate, nationwide relief could allow the administration to enforce an unconstitutional order for years.

"As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Sotomayor said.

But not all the justices seemed worried.

"Is there any reason in this particular litigation that we would be unable to act expeditiously?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who represented the government.

Sauer responded, "Absolutely not, Mr. Chief Justice.”

Sauer during his argument stressed the government at this stage is only seeking to narrow, not eliminate, nationwide injunctions issued by three separate federal judges in Seattle, Boston and Greenbelt, Md. 

A win would enable Trump to enforce his order in some areas but block the administration from using it against individuals residing in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., 22 Democratic-led states as well as identified members of several immigration organizations that are suing. 

Thursday’s session was rare in multiple respects. The justices typically only hear oral arguments between October and April. And for emergency applications like the case at hand, the court almost always resolves them without holding a live courtroom session at all. 

Before the arguments kicked off, Trump himself chimed in with a post on Truth Social from a trip in the Middle East. 

“Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” Trump wrote.