Yelich's 5th career slam and Bauers' 2-run homer power the Brewers to an 11-3 win over the Giants

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Christian Yelich hit his fifth career grand slam and Jake Bauers added a two-run homer as part of an eight-run sixth inning, leading the Milwaukee Brewers to an 11-3 victory over the San Francisco Giants on Tuesday night.

Yelich’s fifth home run this season and first grand slam in more than three years came on a 2-2 fastball from reliever Lou Trivino and broke open what had been a close game. Three batters later, Bauers went deep for his second homer of the season.

Brice Turang added four hits for Milwaukee. Bauers had three hits and William Contreras drove in two runs to help the Brewers win for the fourth time in 11 road games this season.

Jose Quintana (3-0) remained unbeaten after allowing one run and six hits in six innings. Quintana, who was a reliever for the Giants in 2021, had three strikeouts and two walks.

Grant Anderson, Bryan Hudson and Joel Payamps each retired three batters to complete the win for the Brewers.

Wilmer Flores had three hits and an RBI for San Francisco.

Giants starter Jordan Hicks (1-3) allowed eight hits and six runs, five earned, in five innings. Since throwing six scoreless innings in his first start of the season, Hicks has been tagged for 20 runs over 21 1/3 innings (8.44 ERA).

With runners at first and second in the sixth inning, Giants catcher Patrick Bailey was charged with a passed ball and then threw wildly into right field for an error that allowed one run to score.

The Giants hit into three double plays.

Giants RHP Logan Webb (2-1, 2.40 ERA) faces Brewers RHP Freddy Peralta (2-1, 1.91) on Wednesday.

AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/MLB

Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Jose Quintana works against the San Francisco Giants during the first inning of a baseball game in San Francisco, Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

San Francisco Giants second baseman Tyler Fitzgerald, right, fields a base hit by Milwaukee Brewers' Jackson Chourio next to shortstop Willy Adames during the first inning of a baseball game in San Francisco, Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

San Francisco Giants shortstop Willy Adames commits an error while throwing to first base on a ground ball hit by Milwaukee Brewers' Vinny Capra during the sixth inning of a baseball game in San Francisco, Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Jose Quintana, foreground, works against the San Francisco Giants during the fifth inning of a baseball game in San Francisco, Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Milwaukee Brewers' Christian Yelich hits a grand slam against the San Francisco Giants during the sixth inning of a baseball game in San Francisco, Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday weighed whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to temporarily take effect in most of the country, even if they might ultimately be found to violate the Constitution.

The justices heard arguments in the Trump administration's emergency appeals over lower court orders that have kept the citizenship restrictions on hold across the country. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts to remake the government and a mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.

Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump began his second term in January, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court at the start of more than two hours of arguments.

Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president’s agenda.

The justices are also considering the Trump administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

The order conflicts with a Supreme Court decision from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment made citizens of all children born on U.S. with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in this case.

States, immigrants and rights group sued almost immediately, and lower courts quickly barred enforcement of the order while the lawsuits proceed.

The current fight is over the rules that apply while the lawsuits go forward.

The court's liberal justices seemed firmly in support of the lower court rulings that found the changes to citizenship that Trump wants to make would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.

Birthright citizenship is an odd case to use to scale back nationwide injunctions, Justice Elena Kagan said. "Every court has ruled against you,” she told Sauer.

But if the government wins on today’s arguments, it could still enforce the order against people who haven’t sued, Kagan said. “All of those individuals are going to win. And the ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said

Several conservative justices who might be open to limiting nationwide injunctions also wanted to know the practical effects of such a decision as well as how quickly the court could reach a final decision on the Trump executive order.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer with a series of questions about how the federal government might enforce Trump’s order.

“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he said.

Sauer said they wouldn’t necessarily do anything different, but the government might figure out ways to reject documentation with “the wrong designation of citizenship.”

Kavanaugh continued to press for clearer answers, pointing out that the executive order only gave the government about 30 days to develop a policy. “You think they can get it together in time?” he said.

The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among several justices who raised the confusing patchwork of rules that would result if the court orders were narrowed and new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states.

Some children might be “stateless,” Sotomayor said, because they'd be denied citizenship in the U.S. as well as the countries their parents fled to avoid persecution.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing 22 states that sued, said citizenship could “turn on and off” for children crossing the Delaware River between Camden, New Jersey, where affected children would be citizens, and Philadelphia, where they wouldn't be. Pennsylvania is not part of the lawsuit.

One possible solution for the court might be to find a way to replace nationwide injunctions with certification of a class action, a lawsuit in which individuals serve as representatives of a much larger group of similarly situated people.

Such a case could be filed and acted upon quickly and might even apply nationwide.

But under questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others, Sauer said the Trump administration could well oppose such a lawsuit or potentially try to slow down class actions.

Supreme Court arguments over emergency appeals are rare. The justices almost always deal with the underlying substance of a dispute.

But the administration didn't ask the court to take on the larger issue now and, if the court sides with the administration over nationwide injunctions, it's unclear how long inconsistent rules on citizenship would apply to children born in the United States.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Hannah Liu, 26, of Washington, holds up a sign in support of birthright citizenship, Thursday, May 15, 2025, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. "This is enshrined in the Constitution. My parents are Chinese immigrants," says Liu. "They came here on temporary visas so I derive my citizenship through birthright." (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Tanjam Jacobson, of Silver Spring, Md., holds a sign saying "Citizenship is a Birthright," Thursday, May 15, 2025, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. Jacobson is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in England of Indian descent, and her son was born here. "This is something that really matters," says Jacobson, "it's so wrong against the constitution [to take away birthright citizenship]." (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

A woman from CASA Maryland holds her 9-month-old baby as she joins others in support of birthright citizenship, Thursday, May 15, 2025, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)