What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect nationwide.The case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts.The Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda. The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos".
A quick road to the Supreme Court
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect.In Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional". Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the president.Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.So the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions.
The argument against court injunctions
The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum. Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious". Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact. The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda.
The arguments for nationwide injunctions
Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits. Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional scrutiny.Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system."Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said. "I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she said.The other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws. Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that, in the birthright citizenship case, there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.
What are the arguments around birthright citizenship?
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship."All 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."However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US unlawfully.Most legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.At the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?"
Here are some of the ways the justices could rule
On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated for.The justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship). Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing. If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases proceed.If the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court. The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the question.They could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
34 minutes ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court curbs injunctions blocking Trump birthright citizenship plan
The Supreme Court has granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of injunctions imposed by judges that blocked the implementation of the president's birthright citizenship plan. NBC News' Laura Jarrett has details on what the ruling means for Americans and the impact it has on lower court rulings.
NBC News
35 minutes ago
- NBC News
Visa bans, U.S. strikes derail future of Iranian students seeking to study in America
Iranian university students who planned to study in the United States said that their academic careers have been derailed by the Trump administration's visa ban on people from their country. Mohamad Enayati, a 28-year-old civil engineering student, said he had spent years attempting to obtain a visa to study in the U.S., stressing out his family with every rejection and losing touch with friends along the way. Navigating an already lengthy visa process for Iranian students had been difficult enough, he said, only for his future to be thrown into limbo by the ban and then the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. 'My parents are really hurt to see me after what I've been through,' Enayati said. 'My only plan was to study and get a Ph.D. in the United States. If that doesn't happen after all I've struggled, after all I've been through — I really can't imagine.' The students said, however, that by blocking their education in the U.S., the Trump administration unfairly paints Iranians with a broad brush, conflating them with the regime they happen to live under. 'We cannot be punished because of the place that we came from, the place that we were born,' said Hadis Abbasian, an Iranian cancer researcher who has been waiting for her visa for months. 'It wasn't our choice.' The State Department pointed NBC News to a list of limited exceptions to the ban, which include visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran, as well as individuals adopted by American citizens and participants in certain major sporting events. 'The Department of State is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process,' a State Department spokesperson said. On Saturday, the U.S. struck Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, escalating a military conflict that began in mid-June when Israel attacked Iran, saying it was trying to halt it from being able to produce nuclear weapons. Most recently, after the U.S. helped negotiate a ceasefire that went into effect Tuesday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a televised speech Thursday, breaking a weeklong silence. In the speech, Khamenei claimed victory over Israel and said that Iran had delivered a 'slap in the face' to the U.S. The U.S. strikes came weeks after Trump announced in a proclamation early this month that Iran would be among 12 countries whose nationals would be fully restricted from entering the U.S. Seven other countries, including Cuba, Laos and Venezuela, are under partial travel restrictions. The proclamation said that several of the countries on the list had declined to accept the repatriation of their nationals, while others had high visa overstay rates. In Iran's case, the administration said that the entry of its nationals had been suspended because it is a 'state sponsor of terrorism.' 'Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals,' the proclamation said. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC News earlier this month that Trump's policy is in the 'best interest of the American people and their safety.' Enayati said that he was crestfallen by the visa ban — an emotion that only heightened after the recent U.S. strikes. Enayati, who began the visa process in 2023, had been looking forward to a Ph.D. position at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. He said he's endured half a dozen visa application rejections. His seventh and final application was placed in administrative processing by the U.S. Embassy where it has remained for more than a year, he said. 'The Trump travel ban came and it ruined everything,' he said. 'I really want to experience the American dream.' After pouring money and time into the application and visa process, Enayati said it's difficult to entertain any possible future that doesn't include an education in the U.S. 'I don't understand banning us,' said Enayati, who currently lives in Iran. 'We all have a problem with the Iranian regime, but we are just common people.' As of the 2023-24 school year, 12,430 Iranian students were enrolled in U.S. universities. The lion's share of students pursued studies in STEM, particularly in engineering, Amy Malek, chair of the Iranian and Persian Gulf studies program at Oklahoma State University, said that Iranian students have long been subjected to particularly long processing times and intensive scrutiny when it comes to obtaining visas. She said the demographic was once the largest proportion of international students in the late 1970s after the Iranian Revolution, reaching a peak of 51,310 students in the U.S. However, due to geopolitical tensions, those from Iran faced additional screenings and restrictions for decades, she said. A law under the Obama administration, for example, denied visas to Iranian students whose studies would prepare them for energy or nuclear sectors in their home country. And under the first Trump administration, Iran was among the seven Muslim-majority countries whose nationals were banned from entering the U.S. The ban was lifted under Joe Biden in 2021. Today, Iranian students often experience significantly longer wait times than those from other countries, with the visa process sometimes taking months to years — several times longer than the average wait of days to weeks. But, Malek said, many seeking education in the U.S. have historically few ties to political activism or are in opposition to Iran's ruling theocracy. 'There is a long-term misunderstanding, or perhaps unwillingness, to see Iranian citizens as separate from their government,' Malek said. 'I do think that the U.S. government misses out on opportunities to support the kinds of change that they claim to want for Iran when they undermine the ability for Iranian students to study abroad.' Abbasian, the cancer researcher, planned to begin her program this year at the University of Missouri. She also said that her studies have always remained strictly academic rather than political. With the ongoing conflict and visa ban threatening students' future, the restrictions could block opportunities for a generation of scientists, particularly those who may not have the means or time to wait out the indefinite ban, or whose test scores expire while the ban is in effect. Some students will have to resort to continuing their education in other countries or remain in Iran. For Abbasian, she said she's committed to learning under the University of Missouri's specific program and is unwilling to give up that goal. Abbasian, who said she was in shock for days because of the restrictions, said she is determined to find her way to the U.S., speaking out for those in her position and holding out hope for the ban to be lifted at some point. 'No matter how long this takes, someday I will be in the U.S.,' she said. 'I will start my dreams. I believe in my dreams.'
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. ___
