The merits issue is birthright citizenship, but the petitions submitted to the Supreme Court aren’t really about the merits issue, but the process by which three courts have prevented an Executive Order from fundamentally changing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Universal injunctions.

Lawyers for President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift a nationwide pause imposed on the president’s order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents.

Perhaps the New York Times failed to recognize its Freudian slip, that the interim Solicitor General, Sarah Harris, isn’t a lawyer for President Trump, but a lawyer for the United States of America. On the other hand, maybe this phrasing was deliberate, reflecting the misguided grasp of the job by the lawyers who owe fealty to the Boss who believe themselves to serve Trump rather than the nation.

Three federal courts, in Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington State, had issued directives temporarily pausing the order, which was signed by Mr. Trump on his first day in office and declared that citizenship would be denied to babies who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. That would include children born to people who crossed into the country without permission.

None of the three courts have, as yet, held that the EO is unconstitutional. What all three courts have done is issue temporary restraining orders precluding the EO from taking affect. The EO, which flies in the face of precedent, would produce a fundamental change in our understanding of birthright citizenship, having a monumental impact on thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. Pending the determination of Trump’s authority to reinvent the Constitution, the courts have maintained the status quo ante, not just for the parties involved in the specific suits, or for the people living within a state or the judicial district, but for the nation as a whole.

In applications to the court, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, called the government’s request a “modest” one to limit the pause to “parties actually within the courts’ power.”

The three emergency applications list 22 states and the District of Columbia as parties to the lawsuits.

“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” Ms. Harris wrote.

The simplistic question that made the rounds among the MAGA faithful is how a lone district judge can issue an order that prevents the president from doing whatever he pleases. After all, Trump is the president, the most important person in his mind, and the district judge is just, well, a nobody in a robe. The obvious answer is that’s how our tripartite system of government works, and how the founders intended the presidency to be checked so it was unable to impose its will without question.

Curiously, this case involves three district courts in agreement, all issuing nationwide injunctions preventing the EO from taking affect. Had there been a disagreement, a judge refusing to issue a TRO, there would be a far better argument against the issuance of universal injunctions. After all, why would one district judge’s opinion be any more worthy than another’s? But that didn’t happen here, no doubt because of the outlandish EO and it’s radical change of the Constitution.

But this Supreme Court hasn’t shown itself to be shy about reversing sound precedent or caring much about stare decisis and maintaining the stability of law or governance. Should a district judge have the authority to bind not just the parties before it, but the entire nation?

Nationwide lawbreaking by the federal government requires a nationwide remedy. And that’s especially true if the illegality affects the rights of large numbers of people, many of whom could not easily or quickly bring individual suits to challenge it. Justice delayed – in some cases indefinitely – is justice denied.

The case for nationwide injunctions is also strong in situations where the resolution of the issue in question doesn’t depend on variations in circumstances across states and localities. If the government’s actions are illegal in the same way across the nation, then the best way to get justice is to strike it down everywhere at once.

When the implications of unlawful action are no different here than there, and affect everyone without regard to where they’re situated or what their circumstances might be, should they not all enjoy the same protections? It would cause chaos if the law applied one way on one side of the district border and the opposite on the other side. Should every individual potentially affected be required to bring suit, even if the exact issue is already sub judice?

And the birthright citizenship cases are virtually textbook examples of Frost’s points. Trump’s executive order imperils the rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Many of their families lack the resources to bring a lawsuit quickly, if at all. And a situation where the order is in force for some people, but not others (or, alternatively, in some states but not others), creates obvious confusion and anomalies, especially when it comes to a policy (citizenship rules) that is supposed to be uniform throughout the nation.

Where the issue before a court is “categorical,” applicable to all in the same manner without regard to location, situation or financial wherewithal, it would be untenable to require that each and every potential litigant sue or be subject to a shift in law from which others are protected. And, indeed, while it might appear unseemly to the unwashed that a mere district judge has the power to stymie a president, the judicial check on executive fiat has managed to serve our nation well since Marbury v. Madison. With good reason, I might add, even if that means the president can’t order “off with their heads” at will.