On Wednesday, April 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court convened to consider whether President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order violates the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. A decision on the case is expected to be reached by the end of June or early July.
The U.S. citizenship clause specifies that individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of both the U.S. and the state in which they reside.
Prior to the commencement of court hearings, President Trump took to “Truth Social” social media platform to assert that other countries are selling citizenship to the United States, criticizing judges and justices for not taking action against this practice, which he believes undermines the greatness of the nation.
CBS News has compiled the latest details regarding the case.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, which aimed to strip U.S. citizenship from children born in the U.S. under two conditions: when the mother is illegally residing in the U.S. and the father is neither a citizen nor a legal permanent resident, or when the mother holds a lawful temporary status and the father is neither a citizen nor a legal permanent resident.
According to President Trump’s executive order, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to universally grant citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., as it does not cover those born in the U.S. but not under U.S. jurisdiction.
After the executive order was signed, its execution was halted due to lower court injunctions. In June last year, the Supreme Court agreed to limit the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
Subsequently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups representing three plaintiffs filed a collective lawsuit against the executive order (the children of the three plaintiffs were at risk of losing their citizenship due to President Trump’s order). Federal District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire preliminarily ruled that all children potentially affected by the executive order constitute a class action and blocked the government from enforcing the order.
The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and also requested the Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and directly review the birthright citizenship policy. The Supreme Court accepted the case last December.
The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal or temporary residents (such as those on student visas, work visas, or entered the U.S. through visa waiver programs).
D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States, highlighted in his submission to the Supreme Court that the citizenship clause only protects individuals who are “completely subject to” the political jurisdiction of the U.S., owe direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S., and can seek protection from the U.S.
Temporary residents are likely to return to their home country, and their children lack significant ties to the U.S., making it less likely for them to establish such connections. As for illegal immigrants, by definition, they are already in violation of the law and cannot be deemed to owe the necessary allegiance to the U.S.
Sauer pointed out that since the mid-20th century, there has been a misinterpretation of the citizenship clause by the executive branch, leading to a proliferation of illegal border crossings and “birth tourism.” The purpose of President Trump’s executive order is to correct this misinterpretation and address various issues stemming from birthright citizenship, including illegal immigration, national security, public safety risks, and birth tourism.
Sauer argued that granting U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants and temporary residents devalues the meaning and value of U.S. citizenship. Allowing foreign nationals who violate U.S. immigration laws to secure citizenship for their children and then use their children’s citizenship to avoid deportation raises significant concerns about the treatment of legal immigrants.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the collective lawsuit argued that the 14th Amendment is based on protecting birthright citizenship, with very few exceptions regardless of the immigration status, nationality, or residency of the parents.
Groups like the ACLU challenging President Trump’s executive order believe that under English common law, citizenship derives from birth, and there is no residency requirement for children of foreign nationals born in the U.S. They contend that the term “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to being subject to U.S. laws.
The plaintiffs cited a ruling from the New York Court of Chancery in 1844 in the case of “Lynch v. Clarke.” In this case, the state court held that children born to an Irish couple during their temporary residency in New York were entitled to U.S. citizenship and established that anyone born on U.S. soil and loyal to the U.S., regardless of parental status, is a U.S. citizen.
In the 1898 case of “Wong Kim Ark,” the U.S. Supreme Court established the “birthright principle,” determining that individuals born in the U.S. automatically become U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
The plaintiffs argue that if the Trump administration believes a change to birthright citizenship is necessary, then a constitutional amendment should be proposed.