Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Calls Out ‘Catch-Me-If-You-Can’ Legal Standard in Birthright Citizenship Hearing
At a recent Supreme Court hearing over Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summed up what’s becoming the core legal strategy of Trump’s second term: break the law, then hide behind legal technicalities to avoid accountability. “Your argument seems to turn our justice system into a ‘catch-me-if-you-can’ kind of regime,” Jackson told Solicitor General John Sauer, calling out the administration’s attempt to dodge full legal review.
The Trump administration isn’t asking the Court to defend the constitutionality of its order. Instead, it’s just trying to limit the reach of nationwide injunctions—court orders that can block federal policies across the country. Why? Likely because every lower court that’s reviewed the policy has rejected it outright. Justice Elena Kagan didn’t hold back, telling Sauer, “If I were in your shoes, there is no way I’d approach the Supreme Court with this case.”
Avoiding the Real Fight on Citizenship
Trump’s order, which attempts to revoke automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, has been labeled “blatantly unconstitutional” by trial judges and appears to directly violate multiple Supreme Court precedents. But instead of defending it on the merits, Sauer is steering the conversation to procedure over principle—arguing courts shouldn’t be allowed to block the policy nationwide.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that Trump’s order conflicts with four established Supreme Court rulings. Yet, the administration wants to sidestep that legal reality and delay a definitive ruling. Kagan warned that this strategy risks denying citizenship rights to “an untold number of people who… ought to be citizens.”
Using Law to Evade Law
This procedural stalling isn’t limited to birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has been using similar legal gymnastics elsewhere—relying on obscure laws, executive loopholes, and court delays to implement and protect aggressive policies without immediate oversight.
In March, the administration secretly deported migrants to El Salvador and placed them in a notorious prison, invoking the Alien Enemies Act—a law judges across the country have since deemed misused. Yet, even after legal rulings against the move, the administration has been slow to reverse course.
In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the government admitted it illegally deported him, in direct violation of a judge’s order. Instead of bringing him back, it’s invoking the “state secrets” privilege to avoid releasing information about why it defied the courts.
The Bigger Legal Game: Delay, Deflect, Deny
This pattern—delay the courts, deflect from the facts, deny the harm—is the legal legacy shaping Trump’s second term. As Justice Jackson’s words echoed from the bench, the message was clear: the justice system is being bent into a game of evasion, not enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling may only address narrow procedural questions, not the constitutionality of Trump’s policies themselves. If that happens, the real legal consequences—on birthright citizenship, immigration enforcement, and executive power—could be kicked down the road for years.
In the meantime, the question remains: will the courts ever stop chasing and start catching?
