The US Supreme Court has announced it will consider arguments next month regarding President Donald Trump’s efforts to implement his executive order aimed at broadly limiting automatic birthright citizenship.
This order is a central component of the Republican president’s stringent immigration policy.
The justices, in an unsigned ruling, did not take immediate action on a request from the Trump administration to limit the scope of three nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Maryland, which prevented his January 20 order from taking effect during the ongoing legal proceedings.
Instead, the court postponed any ruling on that request until it hears the case scheduled for May 15.
In a series of lawsuits, plaintiffs—including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, advocates for immigrant rights, and several expectant mothers—contended that Trump’s order contravenes a right protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that anyone born in the US is a citizen.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell criticized the initiative to revoke birthright citizenship.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment declares that all “persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The administration argues that the 14th Amendment—historically understood to bestow citizenship to nearly all born in the US—does not apply to immigrants who are in the country unlawfully or to those whose presence is legal but temporary, such as students or individuals on work visas.
The birthright citizenship order “reflects the original meaning, historical understanding, and appropriate scope of the citizenship clause,” stated US Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the administration.
Mr. Sauer asserted that universal birthright citizenship promotes illegal immigration and gives rise to “birth tourism,” where individuals travel to the United States to give birth in order to secure citizenship for their offspring.
A US Supreme Court ruling from 1898, known as United States v Wong Kim Ark, has long been interpreted as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the US to non-citizen parents.
The Trump administration has contended that the ruling’s application was narrower, pertinent only to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
Universal injunctions
The administration has leveraged the birthright citizenship legal challenge to urge the Supreme Court to address “universal” injunctions that federal judges have issued, which restrict various aspects of Trump’s executive orders aimed at reshaping national policy.
Universal injunctions can prevent the federal government from enforcing a policy broadly, rather than solely against the individual plaintiffs who challenged it.
Supporters argue these injunctions serve as a necessary check on executive overreach and have curtailed actions deemed unlawful across administrations from both parties.
Critics assert that such injunctions exceed the jurisdiction of district judges and politicize the judicial system.
Mr. Sauer asserted in a written statement that a “small subset of federal district courts taints the entire judiciary with an impression of political activism,” having issued 28 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration in February and March.
The plaintiffs have criticized the administration’s emphasis on the specificity of the lower court orders rather than their conclusions regarding Trump’s violations of the Constitution.
Washington state urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the government’s “narrow-minded” request, asserting that Trump’s order is “flagrantly unconstitutional.” The state, which filed suit alongside three other Democratic-led states, made this claim in its documentation.
“Acknowledging that the citizenship stripping order is indefensible on its merits, the federal government portrays its appeal as a chance to discuss the legality of nationwide injunctions,” the state claimed.
In seeking to enforce Trump’s order except against the individual plaintiffs who contested it, Mr. Sauer argued that the states lack the necessary legal standing to advocate for the individuals’ rights under the citizenship clause.
In the lawsuit from Washington state, involving the Democratic-led states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon along with several pregnant women, Seattle-based US District Judge John Coughenour issued his injunction against Trump’s order on February 6.
During a hearing in the case, Judge Coughenour, appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, referred to Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, declined to suspend the judge’s injunction on February 19.
