WASHINGTON (CN) — President Donald Trump’s controversial move to end birthright citizenship for some immigrants became a roadblock at the Supreme Court on Thursday, as the justices pushed to limit judges’ authority to influence policy nationwide.

During the marathon oral argument session, most of the justices appeared open to curtailing nationwide injunctions — court orders that apply to more than just the plaintiffs in a particular case — but they struggled to find a path to do so without ruling on the legality of upending over a century of settled precedent.

“This case is very different from many of our nationwide injunction cases in which many of us have expressed frustration at the way district courts are doing their business,” Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, said.

Unlike other dust-ups over nationwide injunctions, Kagan said, the case before the court wasn’t funneled to a particular court with the expectation that nationwide relief might be available in one location and not another. Kagan said this case is different because the government kept losing in the lower courts.

Birthright citizenship was first enacted to repudiate Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the legality of slavery and denied Black people citizenship. After the Civil War, lawmakers enshrined the 14th Amendment, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Trump’s executive order limits that right to legal permanent residents. He claims people in the country illegally or temporarily are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not necessarily citizens.

Judges in Washington state, Maryland and Massachusetts found that Trump’s executive order is likely unconstitutional, blocking its enforcement nationwide. The Justice Department pushed to limit those rulings to only the plaintiffs who sued the administration.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said anyone not already involved in the litigation should have to file their own lawsuit to get relief, and the Supreme Court should be the only court that could issue nationwide relief.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, said the Trump administration’s argument created a “catch me if you can” justice system.

“Your argument says ‘we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc.,’” Jackson said. “I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”

Nationwide injunctions only became common in the last decade. The Trump administration said nationwide relief broke with the tradition of equitable relief, and Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wondered why the high court couldn’t turn back the clock.

“We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Thomas said.

Jackson rejected a backward-looking review, however, questioning why policies of courts during the English Chancery should factor into policies in U.S. courts in the 21st century.

“The fact that the courts back in English Chancery couldn’t enjoin the ‘king,’ I think, is not analogous or indicative of what courts can do in our system where ‘the king’ — the executive — is supposed to be bound by the law,” Jackson said. “The court has the power to say what the law is. One would think that the court could say this conduct is unlawful and you have to stop doing it.”

The conservative justices showed a strong interest in limiting nationwide injunctions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said the problem is that the orders provided the relief of a class action without having to certify a class.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, noted class certification can take time. The Trump administration could also oppose class certification, further delaying the process. While seeming to support class actions as a solution, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also a Trump appointee, was concerned that the government wouldn’t commit to offering an expeditious path for relief.

“Are you really going to answer … that there’s no way to resolve the question quickly?” Barrett asked.

Barrett then tried to confirm that the government would follow circuit precedent. If the Second Circuit ruled against the administration, Barrett asked if the Trump administration would follow that precedent within that circuit.

Barrett appeared shocked when Sauer repeatedly refused to commit to following circuit precedent. Sauer said that was “generally” the policy of the Justice Department but would not wholly commit to doing so.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, worried that the Trump administration wanted a ruling that blocked courts from stepping in when the White House violated precedent.

“As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents and you are claiming that — not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally violating those holdings by this Court,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, tried to sever the nationwide injunction issue from the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

“Are you telling us that we really can’t decide the question we asked to have briefing and arguments on without taking a peek at the merits?” Alito asked.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum said the only way for the justices to decide the case without diving into the merits would be to affirm the lower court ruling. If the justices offered limited relief, Feigenbaum said, the court would have to review how the state was harmed by the law.

“I’m not sure how you could decide whether or not we got an appropriate scope of relief without figuring out what our injuries are,” Feigenbaum said.

The Trump administration did not ask the justices to review the legality of the birthright citizenship order. Sauer suggested the issue needs to percolate in the lower courts before the justices reviewed the order.

Feignenbaum disputed that.

“[The government’s] argument that a single district court cannot decide birthright citizenship or that we need more percolation on that question for the nation overlooks that this court already settled this exact constitutional question 127 years ago and that this EO is contrary to over a century of executive practice,” Feignenbaum.

New Jersey and 17 other states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco challenged Trump’s executive order in Massachusetts. Feignenbaum argued the nationwide injunction is necessary to protect the state of New Jersey in the event children born in other states not covered by the injunction moved to the Garden State, lacking Social Security numbers or other necessary documents to seek benefits.

“It’s going to be a burden on us either in delaying the benefits, training county social service workers in having to administer benefits without the SSNs on a provisional basis,” Feignenbaum said.

Pregnant mothers and immigrant rights groups challenged Trump’s order in Maryland and Massachusetts. Under the government’s arguments, advocacy groups like CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project couldn’t receive class certification. They would have to file on behalf of individual members.

“It would require the association members to identify and disclose to the government an association that puts them at great risk of adverse consequences, detention or deportation, even if they’re here lawfully,” said Kelsi Brown Corkran, the Supreme Court director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Corkran, who argued for the plaintiffs, continued, “It’s not complete relief to require the plaintiffs to make dangerous disclosures in order to claim the constitutional right.”

One of the pregnant mothers suing the government said she fled Venezuela with her husband, fearing for their lives.

“It is my son’s constitutional right to become a U.S. citizen at birth,” the woman identified as Monica said in a statement after arguments. “I fear for our future son and for families like ours who may have to navigate a world where their children are rejected by the country they are born in and that they call home.”

Constitutional Accountability Center senior appellate counsel Smita Ghosh said the stakes of the court’s decision are high, with an untold number of people not being treated as citizens.

“Many justices recognized that their ruling on the procedural issue of universal relief could have serious consequences,” Ghosh said in a statement. “As they noted, limiting the injunctions below could result in a situation where the government would continue to apply an illegal citizenship policy while dodging Supreme Court review.” 

The court’s ruling won’t just impact Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, however. Courts across the country have issued around two dozen nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies. If the justices limit this authority, the White House could use the ruling to challenge other limits on executive orders.