The Trump administration is currently urging the Supreme Court to permit the partial enactment of birthright citizenship restrictions while ongoing legal disputes are resolved. On Thursday, emergency applications were filed at the high court, requesting the narrowing of court orders issued by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, which have presently halted an order signed by President Donald Trump soon after he commenced his second term.
The order, which is currently blocked on a national scale, has encountered rejection from three federal appeals courts, including one from Massachusetts earlier this week. This directive aims to withhold citizenship from those born post-February 19 if their parents are illegal immigrants. Additionally, it prohibits U.S. agencies from issuing or accepting any documentation recognizing citizenship for these children.
Numerous states, along with several individuals and organizations, have contested the executive order, arguing it contravenes the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which promises citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The Justice Department claims that individual judges do not possess the authority to impose nationwide implications through their rulings.
Instead, the administration is requesting the justices to permit the implementation of Trump’s proposal for all except those who have initiated lawsuits, asserting that the states lack legal standing to contest the executive order. As an alternative, the administration seeks permission to publicly announce their intended implementation strategies, should the policy eventually come into effect.
According to Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, in her statement, Trump’s order aligns with constitutional standards since the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, when interpreted correctly, “does not extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the United States.” However, the emergency appeal primarily pivots on the sweeping scope of orders from individual federal judges, not the legality of the order itself.
Among the conservative justices, five have voiced concerns in the past about the broad, nationwide injunctions. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on this matter. Similar arguments were presented by the administration during Trump’s first term, notably in the Supreme Court challenge concerning his travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. The court eventually supported Trump’s policy but did not address the topic of nationwide injunctions.
Harris pointed out the escalating issue to the court recently, highlighting that courts issued 15 nationwide injunctions in February alone, contrasting with the 14 orders throughout the initial three years of President Joe Biden’s administration. This increased frequency mirrors Trump’s rapid actions in office, which include the termination of thousands of federal workers, drastic changes in foreign and domestic aid allocations, amendments to transgender rights, and the curtailment of birthright citizenship.
