CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – The Trump administration is taking its effort to redefine birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court, a step the South Carolina attorney general said could provide needed clarity on how to interpret the constitutional provision. The administration filed emergency appl ications with the high court Thursday that would allow some restrictions on birthright citizenship even as legal challenges to President Trump’s Jan. 20 order play out.   District judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have temporarily blocked the order ending birthright citizenship nationwide. The administration wants the Supreme Court to narrow those rulings, arguing that individual judges lack the power to implement nationwide injunctions. The administration instead wants the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued, arguing that the states lack the legal right, or standing, to challenge the executive order. As a fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to make public announcements about how they plan to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. Here’s where Trump’s approval rating stands on key issues The 14th Amendment states 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.” The amendment, ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War, sought to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals. In a landmark Supreme Court case decades later, the court determined that birthright citizenship applies to any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or status. Attorneys general for 22 states cited that decision in their Jan. 21 complaint challenging Trump’s executive order. “More than 125 years ago, the Supreme Court confirmed that this entitles a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents to automatic citizenship,” they wrote. “Congress subsequently codified that understanding in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1401). And the Executive Branch has long recognized that any attempt to deny citizenship to children based on their parents’ citizenship or immigration status would be “unquestionably unconstitutional.” But some, like South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, argued the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted over the years and that the Framers never intended for it to be universally applied. “It has been misinterpreted over the last 160 years to incentivize the ridiculous notion that somebody can come to the United States in the dead of night, drop a child like an anchor -- like a boat drops an anchor -- and all of the sudden they have been bestowed citizenship henceforth, evermore,” Wilson said in a March 17 appearance on NewsNation. “It’s a nonsensical argument that birthright citizenship should bestow upon people the same rights as people who were born here by people who were lawfully present,” he continued. Wilson joined 18 Republican-led states in filing a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals defending Trump’s executive order. “This case is not about whether birthright citizenship is guaranteed under our Constitution. It is,” they wrote. “Instead, the proper framing of this case asks where the limits of birthright citizenship end.” Wilson said Monday he believes the Supreme Court could answer that question. “This executive order has created a vehicle for us to go to the Supreme Court to get clarity on this issue,” he said. “I think that they could rule in our favor, and I’m hopeful that they will.” The Associated Press contributed to this report. ...read more read less