In what likely will produce the most highly anticipated Supreme Court decision since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, the justices on Thursday will hear arguments in a case concerning birthright citizenship.

But unlike Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the abortion issue to the states, the justices are not expected to rule on the constitutionality of the headline issue. Then again, they could address birthright citizenship because only the judges determine the scope of their decisions.

This time, though, the Supreme Court is expected to focus on the legal process, specifically whether lower court injunctions can block President Donald Trump's executive order limiting who's entitled to birthright citizenship.

U.S. district courts in Massachusetts, Maryland and the state of Washington blocked Trump's executive order. Appeals courts in Boston, Richmond, Virginia and San Francisco then turned down the administration's request that the injunctions be paused or at least narrowed so that they would apply only to the plaintiffs.

"These kind of preliminary injunctions are supposed to be very rare," said Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. "They are not supposed to be an ordinary part of the ligation process. The presumption is supposed to be that these actions by the executive or legislative branches are constitutional and lawful until they're proven not to be.

"And this kind of interference by overly aggressive political judges turns that on its head. And I don't think that's good for our political system, no matter what party you are or whether you're liberal or conservative."

Democrats are relying on the district courts to stop Trump's actions by using a tactic known as "forum shopping."

"Democrats go out and find a plaintiff, and they run to a judge they think will give them what they want," Jipping said. "Almost all of these injunctions are by Democrat-appointed judges, a much higher percent than in previous administrations."

Supporters of nationwide injunctions insist that if something is ruled unconstitutional in one district, it therefore must be unconstitutional in other districts.

Opponents disagree.

"The point is it's one court saying it's unconstitutional, and therefore you haven't had the other courts weigh in," said Paul Kamenar, counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center. "That's basically making a district court have the same power as the Supreme Court."

Unlike the Supreme Court, which was created by the Constitution, district courts are products of Congress.

Thus, one way to regulate federal courts would be for the House and Senate to pass statutes defining the courts' authority.

In March, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced a bill that would limit federal court orders to parties directly before the court. Parties seeking nationwide relief would be required to file a class-action lawsuit.

"If you get a class-action, then the ruling can apply to all members of that class but there are strict requirements to class-actions in order to have the class certified under Rule 23 of the rules of procedure," Kamenar said. "A lot of times, that's even being abused with the courts certifying class when they shouldn't do that."

In April, the House passed a bill that that said judicial orders cannot bind nonparties to litigation before a court; district court judges cannot determine national policy; and creates an exception for certified class action lawsuits and establishes a three-judge appeals process that can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., introduced the bill.

The need for 60 votes in the Senate, though, means that legislation such as that proposed by Grassley and Issa stands little chance of becoming law in the near future.

House Speaker Mike Johnson's suggestion that Congress could "eliminate" district courts seems even more unlikely.

"That's one of the most insane comments I ever heard," former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax. "The federal government would grind to a halt. I mean, 90% of what's done in these civil courts is civil, and the other 10% is initiated by the federal government.

"If the feds had to go into state court to prosecute, which is what they did until 1875 before we had a Department of Justice, it would grind law enforcement to a halt because they would stand behind state prosecutions," Napolitano said.

The other way to rein in U.S. District Court judges is via a decision by the highest court in the land.

Kamenar said he believes the Supreme Court "is going to rule one way or the other" on nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders in the birthright citizenship case.

"At this point, I think there's a good chance that the Court will knock down the nationwide injunction," Kamenar said. "You've got a couple of justices already signaling. [Neil] Gorsuch, [Brett] Kavanaugh, [Clarence] Thomas and maybe [Samuel] Alito.

"And the ones in the undecided column, I think, would be Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. And even a couple of liberal ones have signaled that this is an issue that needs to be looked at. So, I think it's going to be a close decision in terms of striking it down."

Even state laws could be affected by the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier last week asked a federal appeals court to at least temporarily allow the state to carry out a new law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter the Sunshine State. Uthmeier said the Miami federal judge did not have jurisdiction to block enforcement of the state law.

"If they say nationwide injunctions are OK, then that's the end of the ballgame," Kamenar said of the Supreme Court. "There's no reason for state attorneys general to get involved. If the court says nationwide injunctions are illegal, then there might be some action by state AGs saying, 'Well, we're going to challenge the law in our state' but that's still a state-by-state thing, I don't see how that can be a workaround to the ban."

During The Federalist Society's 13th Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 7, former acting U.S. Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio sounded pessimistic that the high court would solve the nationwide injunction issue.

"I personally have no confidence that the Supreme Court is ever going to address this issue in a serious way," Panuccio said. "I think it's in the nature of separate powers for branches not to check themselves, and this has been going on for 20 years. This issue's come up again and again and again and the Court either hasn't been willing or able to address it."

"It could go in one of two ways," Napolitano said. "Either Trump complies with judicial rulings; he wins some, he loses some and he moves on. Or, he defies the court and then we have a Constitutional crisis like we almost had with [former President Richard] Nixon.

"Whatever you think of Nixon, once the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn over the tapes, he turned them over even though he knew it was the end of his presidency. He could have burned them or he could have called out the troops. But he didn't. Being a lawyer, he followed the law. I don't know what Trump will do."

The former judge then issued a warning.

"Our conservative Republican buddies should think about the powers Trump is claiming in the hands of [Illinois Gov.] J.B. Pritzker, or [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom, or [former presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala] Harris or somebody who might follow a lot of the awful things that [former President Barack] Obama did [that] were because the powers the Republican Congress gave to [former President] George W. Bush following 9/11," Napolitano said. "So, you really have to be very careful what you wish for and careful how you use power."

The current judicial climate follows several years of former President Joe Biden's Department of Justice pursuing Trump through four criminal cases — involving the 2020 election, alleged mishandling of classified documents and payments to a former adult film star — and a civil trial aimed at The Trump Organization.

Trump and his allies accused judges in those cases of letting politics affect their decisions.

"Back in the day, when we talked about activist judges, the left in the media mostly said that didn't exist, that we were just making that up," Jipping said. "Well, when it kind of got traction … people didn't know exactly what it meant but they knew it was bad … so, when it started to get traction, then the left started to try and co-opt it and now for a lot of people it just means any judge who does what I don't like."

Jipping admitted that "activist judge" is "a confusing term that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people."

"Certainly, judges appear to be more active than they used to because some of these really political cases are being brought to them to intervene," he said.

The need for a true independent judiciary was deemed a necessity to ensure the balance of separated powers in the U.S. government.

"The whole purpose of an independent judiciary, and independent life-tenured judiciary as I was, is to be anti-democratic," Napolitano said. "Its purpose is not to reflect the public will. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution and the laws so that the popular branches, executive and legislative, stay within the confines of the Constitution."

Recent polls showing that Americans say they have little faith in the courts do not surprise Jipping.

"People just don't understand what judges are supposed to do, so they don't know when they're doing something wrong," he said. "And unfortunately, it's a lot easier to undermine people's perception and support for the judicial branch than it is to build it up.

"So, what the left is doing now may well have permanent consequences for that branch of government."