This case will be heard by the Supreme Court on May 15. This case directly challenges the merits of President Donald Trump’s executive order, claiming the authority to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to foreign parents on his own accord. This case has gained national media attention. The case centers on the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and whether federal district courts have the authority to provide relief through nationwide injunctions.
The 14th Amendment has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States.” The Amendment’s original intent is pretty clear—citizenship was limited only to people who were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Traditionally, this has been understood to mean that everyone born on U.S. soil automatically become citizens. On his very first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order to accelerate the process even further. This order sought to exclude the government from acknowledging citizenship for many people born in the U.S., drawing instant legal ire.
That legal fight started when four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—sued the Trump administration. This suit was soon consolidated with a second suit filed by individual plaintiffs. After the executive order was announced, a number of lower courts responded with sweeping injunctions ordering Trump to stop carrying it out. This resulted in a wave of lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
Notably, a federal judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction against the order in a case brought by two immigrant rights groups and five individuals. So on March 31, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued his third injunction. This ruling is in connection with a distinct, but closely related case with New Jersey and 17 other states. Together, these judicial actions constituted a nationwide block on the enforcement of the birthright citizenship order.
Supreme Court Involvement
In March, Trump brought three cases on this issue to the Supreme Court. On Friday, a three-judge panel from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that federal judge’s ruling. This ruling immediately prevented the administration from enforcing the order. In much a similar fashion, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals favored 2-1 to support another federal judge’s ruling in Washington.
His ruling on the lower court case as US District Judge John Coughenour. We were interested to know from his point of view how clear the legal issues are.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” – US District Judge John Coughenour
He explained just how far-reaching the Supreme Court’s decision could be, writing,
“It would be a stunning development if the justices used these cases, specifically, to resolve that issue – since it would have the effect of allowing a policy that just about everyone thinks is unconstitutional to nevertheless go into effect on a near-universal basis.” – US District Judge John Coughenour
Even still, legal experts have raised red flags about the procedural undercurrents of the case. Steve Vladeck, a leading legal scholar and critic of the administration’s strategy to repeatedly ask the Supreme Court for relief, observed.
“The Trump administration is trying to use a procedural issue to get the Supreme Court to put its birthright citizenship policy into effect across 99% of the country without actually having to decide if the policy is constitutional,” – Steve Vladeck
The Supreme Court is as poised as ever to hear these arguments. Observers expect that its ruling will have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and for the scope of constitutional rights regarding citizenship. The court’s ruling will almost certainly set the agenda for national debates over immigration and civil rights for years to come.
Author’s Opinion
This case raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government, and it will likely have lasting consequences on how the U.S. interprets the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court allows this executive order to stand, it could set a dangerous precedent for undermining fundamental rights under the guise of executive authority. A ruling in favor of Trump would also raise concerns about the erosion of protections guaranteed by the Constitution, potentially leading to more divisive policies in the future.
Featured image credit: Joey Gilbert Law
Follow us for more breaking news on DMR