WASHINGTON – The United States Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it will hear arguments next month on Donald Trump’s effort to broadly enforce his executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, a key pillar of the Republican president’s hardline immigration policy.
In an unsigned order, the justices did not immediately act on Trump’s administration’s request to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland, which halted his January 20 order while the case is being litigated.
Instead, the court deferred making a decision on that request until May 15, when it will hear arguments in the case.
Trump’s order, issued on his first day back in office, directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates, and some expectant mothers, argued that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
According to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, “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.”
Trump praised the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case, telling reporters that it is “an easy case to win.” A Justice Department spokesperson stated that the department was looking forward to presenting its case to the justices.
According to New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is assisting in one of the lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, “Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, is backed by a long line of Supreme Court precedent, and ensures that something as fundamental as American citizenship cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man.”
The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority.
According to the administration, the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to confer citizenship on virtually anyone born in the United States, does not apply to illegal immigrants or even those whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.
The administration’s request to the Supreme Court, however, did not ask the court to rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order. Instead, it used the legal battle to pressure the Supreme Court to address nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions issued by federal judges that stymied aspects of Trump’s various executive orders to reshape national policy, including birthright citizenship.
Universal injunctions can prevent the government from enforcing a policy on anyone, not just the individual plaintiffs who filed to challenge it.
An 1898 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as ensuring that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are eligible for American citizenship. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the court’s decision in that case was narrower, only applying to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
Trump’s birthright citizenship order “reflects the original meaning, historical understanding, and proper scope of the Citizenship Clause,” according to U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the administration. According to Sauer, universal birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which people travel to the United States to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.
Universal Injunctions
Universal injunction supporters argue that they are an effective check on presidential overreach, stifling actions deemed illegal by presidents of both parties. Critics claim they go beyond the authority of district judges and politicize the judiciary.
Sauer claimed in a written filing that a “small subset of federal district courts tars the entire judiciary with the appearance of political activism,” issuing 28 nationwide injunctions against Trump’s administration in February and March.
The plaintiffs criticized the administration for focusing on the scope of the lower court orders rather than their findings that Trump’s directive violates the Constitution.
Washington state urged the Supreme Court to reject the administration’s “myopic” request, claiming that Trump’s order is “flagrantly unconstitutional.”
“Recognizing that the citizenship-stripping order is impossible to defend on the merits, the federal government frames its application as an opportunity to address the permissibility of nationwide injunctions,” the governor said.
Sauer asked the court to enforce Trump’s order except against individual plaintiffs who challenged it, arguing that the states lack the legal standing to assert the individuals’ rights under the citizenship clause.
In the Washington state lawsuit, which was filed by Washington state, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, as well as several pregnant women, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued an injunction against Trump’s order on February 6.
During a hearing in the case, Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan, described Trump’s order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
On February 19, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the judge’s injunction.
