On Thursday, May 15, the US Supreme Court held a hearing on President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, deliberating on the debate over canceling federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court justices heard the US government’s emergency request to reject the rulings by federal judges in Maryland, Washington state, and Massachusetts that blocked Trump’s executive order nationwide. These judges believe that Trump’s order is a crucial component of his tough immigration policy and may violate the provision on citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment specifies that all persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Trump administration argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to undocumented immigrants, nor even to legal immigrants on temporary stays, such as international students or holders of work visas.
Thousands of newborn babies born annually would be affected by this policy.
Deputy Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the US government, told the justices that Trump’s executive order is to “preserve the meaning and value of American citizenship.”
The government contends that federal judges have no authority to issue nationwide or “universal” injunctions and has asked the Supreme Court to make a ruling to that effect. Sauer emphasized this issue, referring to the increasing use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges as a “pathology.”
On January 20, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the US without at least one parent being a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
Trump’s executive order faced challenges from Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as individual pregnant immigrants and immigration rights advocates.
During Thursday’s hearing, after more than two hours of arguments, conservative justices seemed inclined to limit the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, but they were hesitant to make a ruling without further examination of the legal basis of Trump’s executive order.
Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal on the Court, stated that without a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s executive order, it could take the Supreme Court several years to ultimately determine the legality of the directive nationwide.
Sauer pointed out that after the controversy fermenting in the lower courts, the Supreme Court could eventually rule on the legal basis of the policy.
Despite concerns raised by several conservative justices during the lengthy two-and-a-half-hour debate, claiming that federal judges failed to confine injunctions to specific plaintiffs, which they viewed as exceeding their authority, it remains unclear whether the government has convinced a majority of justices to revoke this practice.
The ruling could have a significant impact on the Trump administration’s ability to enforce executive orders, potentially undoing a crucial tool used by plaintiffs in dozens of lawsuits aimed at thwarting Trump’s agenda, from freezing federal funds to banning transgender individuals from serving in the military, to ending birthright citizenship.
“Without nationwide injunctions, we lived into the 1960s just fine.” Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative justice with a long-standing skepticism about such rulings, remarked.
It is still uncertain whether the Supreme Court will order further briefings, which would further delay the resolution of the case. The conservative bloc holds a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court, including three justices appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
(Adapted from a report by Reuters.)