US Supreme Court to shortly commence hearing on US birthright citizenship
AI generated image
District courts blocked implementation of the EO
Supreme Court's hearing begins on May 15
On Jan 20, 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), titled 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' that ended birthright citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizen parents.TOI in its analysis had pointed out that the lakhs of Indians caught up in a decades-long queue for an employment-linked green card will be will be impacted going forward, as a child born in a family (thirty days from the date of the EO) where the mother is here lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the 'father' is not a green card holder or US citizen will not get automatic American citizenship.In response to the EO, nearly 22 states and several civil rights groups filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Several district courts issued nationwide injunctions preventing the implementation of the EO anywhere in the countryThe petitioners had challenged the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.The US Supreme Court, in 1989 in the case of Wong Kim Ark had affirmed that children born in America to foreign nationals are indeed citizens under the Constitution.Trump's executive order points out that the 14Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the US. It has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the US but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. In other words, it requires one of the parents to be a US green card holder or US citizen for the child to get birthright citizenship.The US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on May 15, 2025, regarding the legality of the EO and the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by the district courts.FWD.US, a bipartisan political organization, in its policy brief points out that: The Trump administration isn't even defending its radical constitutional theory in the Supreme Court—likely because it knows the argument would fail—and instead focuses on the legality of nationwide injunctions. Such injunctions have been at the center of political debate in recent years across a variety of policy areas.Proponents argue that these injunctions are necessary to give complete relief to the plaintiffs and also to prevent harm to individuals beyond those named in the cases, especially in cases involving the federal Constitution. Critics argue that such injunctions go beyond the appropriate authority of district court judges and unlawfully limit the authority of the Executive Branch.It adds that, while it is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to rule on the legal principles governing issuance of nationwide injunctions, limiting the relief in this case could result in nationwide chaos and enable the widespread infringement of core constitutional rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Green card rule change: Trump admin makes THIS form ‘effective immediately'. Here's everything applicants must know
Livemint Published 12 Jun 2025, 06:26 AM IST Trump administration revises Green Card application rules.(REUTERS) The Donald Trump administration has revised the green card applications, whereby a renewed medical examination form will be required for every permanent residency application. This change will be effective immediately. Earlier, applicants were permitted to use the same medical form indefinitely.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘…dangerous place': Donald Trump as US to pull some personnel from Middle East amid tensions with Iran
With nuclear deal negotiations between the US and Iran at a standstill, Washington has opted to pull some of its personnel from the Middle East. President Donald Trump cited rising tensions, calling the region a potentially dangerous place. 'They (US personnel) are being moved out (of some countries of the Middle East) because it could be a dangerous place, and we will see what have given notice to move out,' Donald Trump told the media when asked about the evacuation. On being asked whether anything can be done to lower the temperature in the region, Trump replied, 'They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple. They can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to allow that.' He was reportedly referring to Iran. This confirmation by President Trump comes right after Reuters reported on Wednesday that the US is preparing for a partial evacuation of its embassy in Iraq and is also allowing other military dependents to leave locations in the middle-east due to enhanced security risks, citing sources. However, the sources did not say what the security risks were. These evacuations also come at a time when US intelligence has hinted that Israel, which is in a war with Gaza right now, is preparing to hit the nuclear facilities in Iran, Reuters reported. A US senator from Arkansas Tom Cotton also claimed on Thursday that defence secretary Pete Hegseth had confirmed that Iran was working towards building a nuclear weapon amid a stalled nuclear deal between the countries. Also read: Pete Hegseth confirmed Iran working towards nuclear weapon, claims US senator 'Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran's terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen,' he said in a post on X. Trump, who has also repeatedly maintained that he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, told the New York Post in an interview released on Wednesday that he is growing 'less confident' about Iran shutting down its nuclear program and stopping uranium enrichment. 'I don't know, I did think so, and I'm getting more and more — less confident about it. They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame, but I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made,' he told the NYP. Trump also indicated that the US might use force if Iran doesn't agree on the nuclear deal. However, Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh also said on Wednesday that if their country was struck, it would retaliate by hitting American bases in the region, the Reuters report said. With inputs from Reuters
Scroll.in
44 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's ‘pushback' policy violates domestic and international law – but won't face global censure
India's 'pushback' policy of forcing across the border individuals claimed to be undocumented migrants violates both domestic and international law, experts say. Since India launched Operation Sindoor against Pakistan on May 7, it has 'pushed' more than 2,000 people into Bangladesh, The Indian Express reported. At least 40 members of the Rohingya community have been deported to Myanmar even though many of them had cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The legality of the 'pushback' policy has been debated both in India and internationally. But at home, the Supreme Court has not stopped the deportation of Rohingya refugees despite challenges to such actions pending since 2017. Internationally, there is unlikely to be pressure on India from other nations to stop this strategy since many Western nations also employ similar practices, experts say. 'The problem is that most of Europe and the United States are engaged in this,' said Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 'So, who is going to bell the cat and say this is wrong when everybody is doing it?' Human rights lawyer and writer Nandita Haksar agreed. 'The Western states that are so vociferous in taking up human rights' also push refugees back from their shores, she said. 'Therefore, it would be difficult for the Western states to raise the issue of refugee rights with India.' The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a wartime law to deport Venezuelan immigrants with little to no due process. — The New York Times (@nytimes) March 28, 2025 Assam's claim The most enthusiastic champion of this policy has been Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who said on Monday that his border state had been responsible for 'pushing back' more than 303 people believed to be Bangladeshi. This has been done under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, he said. This was the first time Sarma cited a legal justification for 'pushbacks' that the state government has been carrying out since May. As Scroll has reported, at least three of the 14 who were allegedly 'pushed out' of Assam on May 27 were later brought home. They had been deported on the basis of decisions by the state's foreigners tribunals. But the Supreme Court had stayed the decisions of the tribunals in the case of at least two of these individuals as their appeals are pending. The pushback policy violates India's own constitutional guarantees and established legal procedures for deportation, experts said. Forcibly detaining individuals and physically throwing them out of the country violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, applies to all persons within India's territory, regardless of their citizenship status, said Rita Manchanda, research director at the South Asia Forum for Human Rights. This has been underlined by the Supreme Court in several judgements, she noted. The same article was also violated when the Indian authorities deported Rohingya refugees, forcing them into a country that is gripped by civil war and where they face genocide, experts say. 'Pushing them into an active war zone poses a direct threat to their life,' said Anghuman Choudhury, a doctoral candidate in Comparative Asian Studies jointly at the National University of Singapore and King's College London. Choudhury emphasised that Sarma's statement that deportations will be carried out 'without legal process' violates of Article 14 of the Constitution. This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to everyone within Indian territory. 'Everyone has a right to be heard as per law,' he said. 'You cannot just pick up any suspected foreigner – even the suspected foreigner needs to go through the legal process.' Besides, these processes have been instituted to ensure that no Indian citizens are expelled from their country, he added. Is this a new policy? Experts told Scroll that while India had engaged in 'push backs' of foreigners before, it had never adopted this as a strategy for deportations. Contrary to Sarma's claim that 'pushbacks' are a 'new innovation', this method has been used on the India-Bangladesh border since at leastt 1979, said Choudhury, the doctoral candidate – but the purpose has changed. Until recently, 'pushbacks' meant that the Assam border police or the Border Security Force would stop individuals they spotted trying to enter India from Bangladeshi territory and force them to return or would 'push back' those who had managed to cross the border into India. 'But those were ad hoc cases,' Choudhury said. 'What we are seeing today seems to be a more large-scale systematic policy.' What is also unusual is India's decision to 'push back' refugees, said Nandita Haksar. 'The rate and cruelty with which refugees, including those recognised by the [United Nations High Commission for Refugees] are being deported even at the risk of their lives is new and disturbing,' she said. Ravi Nair agreed. 'India had pushed back people before…,' he said. 'But this kind of pure abduction and putting them into no man's land is clearly crossing the Rubicon.' Violation of domestic law and due process The legal process for deportations in India is articulated in a Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2011. All deportations must be initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs sending the identity details of the apprehended foreigner to their country's embassy. The person can be deported only after confirmation of the person's nationality has been received through these diplomatic channels. The current 'pushback' policy bypasses these procedures, Nair said. 'We have to submit the names and the documents of alleged Bangladeshi nationals to the government of Bangladesh,' he said. 'Once those are verified and Bangladesh is willing to take them, then they are sent back. That is clearly not being followed.' Last month, Scroll reported that 40 Rohingya refugees who had been detained in Delhi alleged that they had been forced off a navy vessel in the Andaman Sea with life jackets on May 7 and told to swim towards Myanmar. Choudhury pointed out that the deportations of Rohingya refugees in this manner violated a 2021 order of the Supreme Court. In a case requesting a halt to the expulsions of Rohingya refugees, the court had said that they could be deported. But it explicitly mandated that deportations must adhere to due process, a directive that appears to be 'directly violated' by the current policy, Choudhury said. Breach of international law Experts told Scroll that 'pushing back' refugees violated India's obligations under international law and customary international law. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning individuals to a country where they would face persecution, is considered jus cogens – a peremptory norm of international law binding on all states. 'The principle of non-refoulement is also seen as a customary international law,' making it binding even if a country has not ratified specific conventions, Choudhury said. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. 'But as a member of the UN General Assembly, which is the parent body of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, India is strongly expected to adhere by customary international law,' he said. 'Customary law transcends treaty obligations.' He pointed out that India is a signatory to the Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees, issued in 2001, and the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees, which India signed in 2018. Both mandate non-refoulement as a principle to be upheld by their signatories. India is also a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These treaties too contain provisions that implicitly or explicitly uphold the principle of non-refoulement, particularly concerning the right to family unity and protection from inhuman treatment, said Aman Kumar, a PhD candidate at the Australian National University who runs the Indian Blog of International Law. 'When you return female refugees back to Myanmar, or you separate children from their parents through deportations, you violate these treaties,' Kumar said. He noted that India had an 'extensive and wide record of accepting refugees as a state practice.' He pointed to asylum granted over the decades to tens of thousands of refugees from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tibet, in stark contrast to the current Indian government's hostility towards Rohingya refugees. Scrutiny of policy unlikely Internationally, India's 'pushback' policy is likely to attract scrutiny from United Nations agencies. On May 15, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Myanmar began an inquiry into alleged deportation of 40 Rohingya refugees from Delhi. The special rapporteur, Thomas Andrews, described these alleged acts as 'unconscionable' and 'unacceptable'. Many experts told Scroll that India is already receiving bad press on the issue internationally. However, direct action against India would face significant hurdles. If a country violates treaty obligations, action could be launched against it in the United Nations' International Court of Justice. But geopolitical realities often deter international action, Kumar said. 'India is too strategically important as a huge market and a potential alternative to China in the global supply chain,' he said. As a consequence, he does not foresee another country taking India to the International Court of Justice. In theory, Bangladesh – the country most affected by this policy – could start proceedings against India in the International Criminal Court, said Nair. 'Even though India is not a party to the International Criminal Court, Bangladesh is,' he said. 'A state party can bring a complaint against a non-state party before the court.' However, he said, that possibility was remote because Bangladesh is unlikely to want to aggravate India at a time of fraught relations between the two. Manchanda said that India may face some heat at the United Nations Human Rights Council's upcoming session on June 16. 'I expect that there will be statements made by civil society groups expressing outrage at what India is doing,' she said. She pointed out that in June 2024, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had called for India to refrain from forcibly detaining and deporting Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. But Manchanda said she was 'unsure about how much traction this would get.' Kumar did not believe the policy would be halted. 'Legally there is essentially nothing stopping India from continuing to carry out such deportations,' he said.
