Today the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in the federal government's efforts to be able to generally implement President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship - the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. The dispute is one of the relatively rare proceedings that came to the justices as an emergency appeal - on the so-called 'shadow docket' - only to be set for oral arguments. Though the dispute comes to the justices through challenges to Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, the primary issue before the court is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can bar the government from enforcing an executive order - or, in another case, a law or policy - anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional. The Trump administration's filings acknowledge that the challenges to birthright citizenship 'raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.' But its focus in the filings is not on whether Trump's executive order violates the Constitution, but rather on the district courts' use of universal injunctions. The Constitution, the Trump administration argues, does not give federal judges the power to issue universal injunctions. Instead, the government contends, federal judges can only issue a judgment or order regarding the rights of the litigants in the case before them.