The United States Supreme Court recently engaged in a critical review of an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump, which aimed to redefine birthright citizenship. Specifically, on his first day back in the White House in January, Trump issued an order encouraging. This Executive Order argued that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution does not mean that anyone born in the country is automatically granted American citizenship. This extreme and controversial measure has been under nationwide legal attack, with three federal district court lawsuits arguing over its legitimacy.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the three cases stem from lawsuits filed by over 20 states and two cities, all challenging Trump’s assertion regarding birthright citizenship. At the time of the hearings, a trio of liberal justices on the Court were signaling skepticism toward the Justice Department’s arguments. As noted by Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, such an order can have vast implications for rights, remedies, and access to justice.
“Does every single person affected by his EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?” – Kagan
Justice Brown-Jackson further articulated her apprehension regarding the potential consequences of Trump’s executive order, stating, “The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch-me-if-you-can’ kind of regime.” She emphasized the burden placed on citizens by adding, “everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.” Brown-Jackson concluded her remarks with a critical note, asserting, “I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”
At the same time as this cuts announcement, Trump was in the news for striking a historic $600 billion investment deal with Saudi Arabia. His longstanding friendship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has come under scrutiny amidst these developments. The former president’s administration suffered a firestorm of criticism when it cut $450 million in research and education grants to Harvard University. This decision marked a blow and further stressed the controversial idea of his policies.
Trump’s tariffs are running into legal trouble. A federal trade court is still chewing through them. This ongoing challenge reflects the broader complexities of Trump’s economic policies and their implications for international trade.
In the most consequential move yet, Trump ordered the U.S. to remove all sanctions on Syria. This courageous diplomatic move has the potential to change the entire shape of regional diplomatic relations for the better. This announcement is a fitting final act to much of his administration’s controversial foreign policy maneuvers, known for their penchant for generating fierce backlash.
As Trump’s presidency crumbles under an avalanche of legal challenges, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has iced on more than a dozen Department of Justice nominees that Trump has submitted over the flap with a Qatari jet. This political maneuvering adds yet another layer of difficulty to Trump’s efforts to cement his administration’s influence among the judiciary.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. While this case is about the narrow legal definition of waters, its implications could extend deep beyond law itself. The result would have major ramifications – in a civil rights context and as it relates to immigration policy in the U.S.