Former President Donald Trump has touched down in the United Arab Emirates. As he concludes the last stretch of his Middle East tour. This visit comes at a particularly significant legal moment in the United States. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about the legality of Trump’s controversial executive order eliminating birthright citizenship. This landmark case is likely to shape the future of executive power and immigration policy for years to come.
The Supreme Court is poised to hear three consolidated cases— Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. These cases are Trump v CASA, Trump v Washington, and Trump v New Jersey. The arguments will focus on whether Trump’s executive order can effectively alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which traditionally grants citizenship to children born in the U.S., including those of undocumented immigrants. We understand that Trump’s administration is arguing that the 14th Amendment created citizenship for enslaved persons’ children only. They contend that this interpretation is true to the Amendment’s original purpose.
The Supreme Court is preparing for a momentous term. For obvious reasons, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been most vocal about the deleterious effects of Trump’s order on the rights of citizenship recognized in four different Court precedents. More than anything else, she pointed to the historical and legal justification for citizenship by birthright. She further stated that the plain text of the 14th Amendment is “a clear and settled law.” She’s not alone in calling Trump’s executive order an implementation of a “fringe theory.” This perspective informs her interpretation of its legal underpinnings.
Justice Sotomayor’s remarks shed some light on a larger apprehension amongst the justices regarding the impact of nation-wide injunctions on presidential exercise. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito have each long expressed skepticism, contending that such injunctions are “patently unworkable.” Here’s Missouri’s Solicitor General John Sauer vigorously arguing for the administration’s position. He contended that these nationwide injunctions represent a novel and extraordinary check on executive power, even dubbing them a legal “nuclear weapon.”
Justice Elena Kagan made some pointed observations about the real-world implications of restricting nationwide injunctions. She challenged Sauer to articulate the consequences of making each and every person impacted by his executive order. What would it mean for them to bring their own lawsuits? In a pointed dissent, Kagan warned of the chaos and confusion that could result from this new approach. The stakes of this case directly affect the lives of millions of Americans, raising the odds tremendously.
Now, courtrooms across Washington are filled with the debates. In advance of the hearings, Trump has turned up the rhetoric on provoking junk birthright citizenship and perhaps even war with our friends up north. He announced that “nothing will happen” on Ukraine until he and Russian President Vladimir Putin can meet for talks. In a separate statement, he criticized America’s approach to immigration, stating, “We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country,” further arguing that this mentality contributes to the dysfunction within American society.
Sotomayor warned that if Trump’s executive order stands, it will permanently alter the enforcement of the country’s immigration policy. She claimed that this change might have significant impacts. She pointed to past historical precedents that unmistakably define citizenship rights of children born on U.S. soil. This compelling evidence went a long way to bolster her case against the order.
“Because the argument here is that the president is violating … not just one, but by my count, four established supreme court precedents,” – Sonia Sotomayor
Kagan’s interrogation is indicative of her skepticism toward the government’s approach. She noted, “In a case in which the government is losing constantly… it’s up to you whether to take this case to us.” We hope this statement further highlights her skepticism about the merits of continuing to pursue this legal challenge.
Trump’s administration has framed its appeal as an effort to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions while advocating for its contentious birthright citizenship order. If successful, this maneuver could set a dangerous precedent allowing for nationwide enforcement of Trump’s illegal immigration policies.
Justices are considering their ruling’s impact well past the legal precedent. They don’t seem to be playing 5D chess considering how it will influence executive authority down the line. Justice Clarence Thomas remarked on the history of judicial practice with respect to injunctions, stating, “The country survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.” His outlook points to an understanding that there should be a more limited exercise of judicial power in cases involving executive action.
His comments throughout these historic legal fights underlines exactly what his strategy is. His goal, it seems, is to place immigration issues at the center of his political narrative. During his remarks about birthright citizenship, he insisted that “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America.” His goal, like any shrewd politician, is to catch momentum and build support among his base. By framing recent immigration policies as vile, he highlights an assault on the national interest.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will not only determine the fate of Trump’s executive order but will set a precedent for how executive power is exercised in future administrations. As the justices enter into the final stages of deliberation, their ruling will have major implications for future immigration policy and the scope of executive authority.