Michael Barbaro

Adam, it's around this time that Justice Kagan weighs in with a very firm theory about why she thinks the president will not ever bring this case based on the merits to the legal system, which is basically she thinks they have no shot of winning.

So what the justices are starting to discern is that the White House is going to do everything in its power to never have the high court issue a firm final ruling on its efforts to end birthright citizenship. And although they have taken this case, this side door case, they're expressing some real frustration with that fear.

So what the justices are starting to discern is that the White House is going to do everything in its power to never have the high court issue a firm final ruling on its efforts to end birthright citizenship. And although they have taken this case, this side door case, they're expressing some real frustration with that fear.

And not in a good way.

And not in a good way.

And we will review what those lawyers said after the break. So, Adam, on the other side of this case were lawyers for those who have won these universal injunctions against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship who were trying to defend those injunctions. So talk to us about their arguments before the justices.

And we will review what those lawyers said after the break. So, Adam, on the other side of this case were lawyers for those who have won these universal injunctions against Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship who were trying to defend those injunctions. So talk to us about their arguments before the justices.

Hmm.

Hmm.

So basically, New Jersey's Solicitor General is saying, if, justices, you don't like nationwide injunctions, I am not here to tell you that they're wonderful, but I am here to tell you that if you don't let a universal injunction survive in this specific case, it's going to create a tremendous amount of mayhem across the country. Right. And how compelled were the justices by this argument?

So basically, New Jersey's Solicitor General is saying, if, justices, you don't like nationwide injunctions, I am not here to tell you that they're wonderful, but I am here to tell you that if you don't let a universal injunction survive in this specific case, it's going to create a tremendous amount of mayhem across the country. Right. And how compelled were the justices by this argument?

Right. You don't need a universal injunction or even a debate about them if the Supreme Court is asked whether the president's executive order itself is constitutional. Exactly right.

Right. You don't need a universal injunction or even a debate about them if the Supreme Court is asked whether the president's executive order itself is constitutional. Exactly right.

The case is submitted. So Adam, given the reality that the Trump administration is not bringing the merit-based case to the court, instead it's bringing this case that tries to invalidate nationwide injunctions, how do you think the justices are likely to rule in this case and how quickly? I mean, clearly they're skeptical of the White House's position here.

The case is submitted. So Adam, given the reality that the Trump administration is not bringing the merit-based case to the court, instead it's bringing this case that tries to invalidate nationwide injunctions, how do you think the justices are likely to rule in this case and how quickly? I mean, clearly they're skeptical of the White House's position here.

They're equally skeptical to some degree of nationwide injunctions. So where do you think they're going to land?

They're equally skeptical to some degree of nationwide injunctions. So where do you think they're going to land?

In other words, there's some chance that they might not rule at all and ask for the entire enchilada instead.

In other words, there's some chance that they might not rule at all and ask for the entire enchilada instead.

Adam, assuming that the justices don't seek... the bigger merit-based case to come before them, but they rule in a way that narrowly upholds the injunction in this case. What will that mean for the Trump agenda to have lost this bid to strike down basically all nationwide injunctions?