The United States Supreme Court has been hearing arguments against one of former President Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders. This executive order is another attempt to redefine birthright citizenship. This executive order would strip citizenship from babies born on American soil. It does not apply to those whose parents are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The court is expected to issue its ruling by early July. This ruling comes amidst several large legal challenges and a documented history of policies thwarted during Trump’s presidency.
Throughout his first term, Trump endured a record-setting 86 nationwide injunctions that precluded him from enforcing his policies. Rulings Former President Joe Biden has been ruled 28 times on a truthfulness violation. In comparison, Barack Obama faced 12, and George W. Bush six. As of May 1, Trump was staring down at least 328 lawsuits around the country. He’s been stopped by judges more than 200 times.
The crux of Trump’s executive order lies in its conflict with the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” According to legal experts, Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship is missing a key legal obstacle. They say that it will eventually be struck down due to a constitutional contradiction.
Three federal judges have already stopped Trump’s birthright citizenship policy across the country. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman emphasized that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation” of the 14th Amendment.
As Justice Elena Kagan recognized, the government has now lost every case concerning Trump’s illegal birthright citizenship order. This pattern creates grave concerns over the sustainability of the executive order, and whether it matches up with longstanding legal precedent.
As the U.S. Supreme Court justices themselves noted with great concern during recent hearings, this misuse of the order could have ominous consequences. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the necessity of nationwide injunctions, suggesting that the country “survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.” His comments ring true in a legal climate where such injunctions have proliferated alarmingly since Trump was inaugurated.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised an important point regarding accessibility to justice, questioning whether it is “remotely consistent with the rule of law” to require every affected individual to hire a lawyer. Yet this concern cuts to the heart of what’s at stake with the order Trump signed. Otherwise, it would create a contradictory and arbitrary citizenship patchwork from state to state.
Floyd Andrea Flores, a legal advocacy expert, demonstrated some of the possible havoc that the order could create. “That would create a different scheme, where, in one state, say, in South Carolina, if you’re the child of an immigrant, you’re not a citizen, but in North Carolina and you’re the child of an immigrant, you are a citizen,” she explained. “So it would create a patchwork citizenship process.”
John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, defended Trump’s executive order, arguing that it aimed at “protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship.” This claim has been challenged by many legal experts who doubt its constitutional standing.
Civil society groups, businesses, and activists have long protested the order. One protestor stated, “Birthright citizenship isn’t a conditional privilege,” reflecting a widespread sentiment that the right to citizenship should not be subject to arbitrary limitations based on parental status.
The justice department has highlighted what it perceives as an epidemic of injunctions against Trump’s policies since his administration began. The ongoing debate over birthright citizenship highlights a significant intersection between immigration policy and constitutional rights in the United States.