The Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s order to end the nationalized nationality

US President Donald Trump has taken his attempt to end the citizenship born to the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, in a case that could help increase his agenda on immigration and other cases.

The case asks whether the minimum court judges should be able to prevent presidential orders to the entire country – as they did in this case. Judges do not seem to reach consensus because they are considered both sides.

The US public prosecutor argued that the lower courts have exceeded its authority, saying that this authority should be reduced.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey Attorney General – who is arguing on behalf of a group of countries – said that bending to Trump will create a system of a sexual.

This would create “chaos on the ground”, as the lawyer, Jeremy Vecenbum.

It is not clear when the court will issue its decision. If he agrees to Trump, he can continue his wide use of executive orders to fulfill promises of the campaign without the need to wait for the approval of Congress – with checks limited by the courts.

It seems that the judges through the ideological spectrum are struggling with two cases during the two -hour hearing on Thursday.

There was an interrogation of the authority of the lower courts to prevent a presidential matter worldwide. The judges also considered the advantages of the matter of citizenship the same generator – which argues critics to violate the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution and the precedent of the Supreme Court.

The current regime “requires the judges to make hasty and high information decisions.”

The disgraceful judges have been for more than an hour, as liberal justice indicated to Elena Kagan that the administration was lost in the case of citizenship in every less court. “Why did you take this issue to us before?” I asked.

In response, Saur said that the collective lawsuit – which allows large numbers of prosecutors to prosecute – can provide one way. He said that the process is often consumed for time and did not provide relief in emergency conditions.

Judge Samuel Aleo, one of the most prominent governors in the court, criticized the authority of the court minimum to issue judicial orders at the country level.

“Sometimes they are wrong,” he said, adding that some of the minimal court judges were “subject to a professional disease, which is a disease that I am right, and I can do what I want.”

Feignbauum, who argues on behalf of countries that claim harm from the executive order, said that standing at the Trump administration on this issue will be impractical and unconstitutional.

He said that eliminating the option of restraining orders at the country level can create a system of patchwork citizenship, as the individual can have a place in one case, but he loses it when crossing it to another.

Feigenbauum said this standard will have a harmful distribution to influence government benefits such as Medicaid, enforcement of immigration and maintain accurate statistics.

“Since the fourteenth amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to differ based on the country where a person resides,” said Vegagnabum.

While the judges hit the questions in the lawyers, a large group of demonstrators abroad gathered to express the opposition of Trump’s immigration policies.

Congress Nancy Pelosi, a former spokeswoman for the House of Representatives, joined the demonstrators abroad and read from the United States’ constitution.

She said: “This is related to the topic, it is related to citizenship, it is related to due legal procedures.”

It is not customary for the Supreme Court to hold a hearing in May, and there is no indication of when it may rule. Trump appointed three of the nine judges in the conservative majority court in his first term.

Many legal experts say that the president does not have the authority to end the newly born citizenship because it is guaranteed through the fourteenth amendment to the American constitution. Therefore, even if Trump wins the current issue, he may still have to fight other legal challenges.

Specifically, the fourteenth amendment states that “all people born or manived in the United States, and are subject to their judicial authority, are citizens.”

In the executive order, Trump has argued that the phrase “its jurisdiction” means that automatic citizenship does not apply to the children of immigrants who do not have documents or people in the country temporarily.

However, the Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, issued orders at the country – or global levels that prevented the matter.

The orders, in turn, prompted the Trump administration to say that the lower courts have exceeded their powers.

“Comprehensive orders have reached epidemiological dimensions since the current administration began,” the government said in the March court file. “The members of this court have long realized the need to settle the comprehensive orders law.”

Earlier this week, the Ministry of Justice official told reporters that the court cases “mainly frustrate” Trump’s ability to implement the agenda of his policy, and that the administration believes that this is a “direct attack” on the presidency.

The case in the Supreme Court stems from three separate lawsuits, whether from immigration advocates and 22 US states.

The Trump administration asked the court to judge that restraining orders can only apply to these immigrants named in the case or to the plaintiff’s states – which will allow the government at least to implement the Trump order at least even with the continued legal battles.

Nearly 40 different judicial orders have been submitted since the start of the second Trump administration, according to the Ministry of Justice.

In a separate case, two low trials were prevented from the Trump administration from enforcing the ban on sexual transgendering, although the Supreme Court intervened in the end and allowed the application of policy.

A goal – even one partial – can affect a citizen born on tens of thousands of children in the United States, with one of the lawsuits that argue that it will “impose a second degree case” on a generation of people who were born, and lived only, in the United States.

Alex Quach, a lawyer and professor at Kis Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that a possible end of citizenship in pillarical can force some of these children to become uncomfortable or “sexual”.

“There is no guarantee that the countries where their fathers will be returned,” he said. “It will not be clear where the government can deport them.”