The Supreme Court maintained a hold on President Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship, but agreed to hear arguments on the matter next May. This executive order, which sought to prevent automatic citizenship for children born to individuals illegally in the U.S., has faced nationwide injunctions from district courts. Appeals courts have not overturned these decisions.
The Republican administration has attempted to scale back these injunctions to permit the policy’s implementation in several areas pending ongoing legal battles. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming arguments on May 15 will likely concentrate on this effort.
Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment following the Civil War, ensures that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, including those born to undocumented immigrants. Trump and his supporters argue for more stringent eligibility for citizenship, which he described in his executive order as a “priceless and profound gift” upon his re-election.
The administration contends that offspring of noncitizens do not fall “under the jurisdiction” of the U.S., a critical phrase in the amendment, thus not qualifying them for citizenship.
President Trump expressed satisfaction regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case. He remarked that the 14th Amendment was ratified in a post-Civil War context that centered around slavery issues, implying this historical perspective favors his legal stance.
However, states, immigrants, and rights groups have challenged the executive order, accusing the Trump administration of disrupting the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, representing one lawsuit, remarked that birthright citizenship cannot be subject to the caprices of an individual leader.
Courts thus far have consistently opposed the administration’s position. The Justice Department argues that lower court judges lack the authority to implement nationwide rulings, preferring that the executive order is allowed to proceed except for the plaintiffs in specific lawsuits. If unsuccessful, they agree to a continuous block in the 22 states that initiated legal challenges.
As an alternative measure, the administration requested permission to issue public guidance on implementing the policy should its legality be confirmed.
While the immediate appeal does not address the executive order’s legality directly, it is expected that this fundamental issue will be deliberated. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it risks creating a varied legal landscape where citizenship depends on the state of birth.
Previously, the legitimacy of universal injunctions has troubled justices, yet no definitive ruling exists. The Justice Department’s similar argument arose during the disagreement over Trump’s travel bans, which the Supreme Court later supported without engaging the issue of broad injunctions.
The administration’s pushback against such injunctions highlights perceived interference with crucial policies on borders, international relations, and national security. Trump’s administration faces over 150 lawsuits seeking to obstruct his rapid governmental reforms, resulting in numerous judicial delays.