US Supreme Court grills Trump administration over birthright citizenship
Washington, DC – Justices at the US Supreme Court have questioned lawyers representing the administration of US President Donald Trump and those challenging his effort to end birthright citizenship in the country.
The hearing on Thursday represented the first time the top court in the United States has heard a case related to Trump's January 20 order seeking to do away with the more-than-century-old policy, which grants citizenship to nearly all infants born on US soil, regardless of their parents' legal status.
It was not immediately clear when the court would issue a ruling in the case, although an outcome could take weeks. It also remained unclear if the justices would address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, or if they would only rule on the narrower question of whether lower federal court justices are empowered to block the implementation of the order nationwide.
Still, demonstrators and lawmakers who gathered outside of the Washington, DC courthouse said any ruling challenging birthright citizenship would corrode the national fabric of the US.
'We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch,' Ama Frimpong, the legal director of CASA, told those gathered in protest.
'All persons born in the US are citizens of the US,' Frimpong said.
Legal experts have also said a ruling limiting federal courts' ability to order a 'national' or 'universal' injunction to block Trump's executive actions would in and of itself be transformative.
'That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions,' said Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro from outside the courthouse.
'But it's the second question that really people are focused on, and that is if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for the children born to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders visiting the US,' she said.
'Now it is up to the justices whether they want to go in either of those directions.'
Over two hours of questioning, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as those representing states and individuals who have challenged Trump's order, addressed matters both of constitutional grandeur and legal minutia.
Solicitor General John Sauer began by laying out the Trump administration's broad argument that the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been incorrectly interpreted since then. The amendment, Sauer argued, 'guarantees citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors'.
Trump also reiterated that position in a Truth Social post ahead of the hearing, saying birthright citizenship makes the US a 'STUPID Country' that incentivises people to visit to have children.
Sauer also took aim at the three federal judges who have ruled in favour of separate lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality. Plaintiffs in those cases include 22 state attorneys general, immigrant rights organisations, and individuals affected by the rule. Sauer argued that the judges' decisions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the cases, and not the entire nation.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the broader constitutional question could be unpicked from the narrower question of the judges' reach, saying the president's order violates 'by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents'.
That included the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, which first established that the 14th Amendment applies to immigrants, she said.
Other justices questioned the implications of a scenario where the court ruled that the judges could not issue 'national injunctions' in the case, without answering the underlying constitutional question.
Legal scholars have noted that this could create a situation where Trump's end to birthright citizenship would not apply to states and individuals who successfully challenged his order in court. That would mean birthright citizenship – at least temporarily – would end in 28 other states if they do launch their own challenges.
'Does every single person that is affected by this EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?' Justice Elena Kagan questioned.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument turns the US justice system into a 'catch me if you can kind of regime'.
Under that, 'everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is Trump's foreign policy weakening the US? Ken Roth and Stephen Walt
A longtime columnist for Foreign Policy and professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Stephen Walt is a sharp critic of how the United States has pursued its version of liberal democracy globally, which he calls liberal hegemony. His books include Taming American Power, The Hell of Good Intentions, and the New York Times bestseller The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. In this episode of Reframe, Ken Roth and Stephen Walt discuss how President Donald Trump is undermining democratic norms and institutions within the US and worldwide, questioning whether his leadership has brought about an unprecedented shift in its global power.
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Trump and Bukele are destroying Kilmar Abrego Garcia's life
In March, the United States government deported to El Salvador 29-year-old Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had lived and worked in the US for almost half his life. Little did he know that he would soon be the face of US President Donald Trump's sinisterly exuberant mass deportation campaign. Married to US citizen Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia was detained while driving in Maryland with the couple's five-year-old autistic son, who got to witness his father's capture by the US forces of law and order and has apparently been severely traumatised as a result. In a subsequent court affidavit, Vasquez Sura said her son, who cannot speak, had been 'very distressed' by the 'sudden disappearance of his father', crying more than usual and 'finding Kilmar's work shirts and smelling them, to smell Kilmar's familiar scent'. Of course, tearing families apart and traumatising children has long been par for the bipartisan course in everyone's favourite 'land of the free', although Trump has certainly made more of a sensational spectacle out of it than his Democratic predecessors, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Anyway, there is nothing like sowing a bunch of fear and psychological trauma in the name of national security, right? Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador along with more than 200 other people, who shared the honour of serving as demonised guinea pigs in the Trump administration's current experiments in sadistic countermigration policy. The deportees were swiftly interned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), the notorious mega-prison built by Nayib Bukele, El Salvador's self-described 'coolest dictator in the world'. The facility houses thousands of people arrested under the nationwide 'state of emergency', which was declared in 2022 and shows no sign of abating. Under the pretence of fighting a war on gangs, Bukele has imprisoned more than 85,000 Salvadorans – over 1 percent of the country's population – in an array of jails that often function as blackholes in terms of indefinitely disappearing human beings as well as any notion of human and legal rights. And now that incoming US funds and deportees have boosted El Salvador's international carceral clout along with Bukele's tough-guy image, there is even less of a rush to end the 'emergency'. Meanwhile, the case of Abrego Garcia in particular has provided both Trump and Bukele with an extended opportunity to showcase their mutual passion for sociopathy and disdain for the law. As it so happens, Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador occurred in direct violation of a 2019 ruling by a US immigration judge, according to which he could not be deported to his native country on account of the dangers that such a move would pose to his life. Indeed, Abrego Garcia fled to the US as a teenager, precisely out of fear for his life following gang threats to his family. And although the US government was quickly forced to acknowledge that his deportation in March had occurred 'because of an administrative error', the Trump-Bukele team remains determined not to rectify it. After all, this would set a dangerous precedent in suggesting that the possibility of recourse to justice does in fact exist, and that asylum seekers in the US should not have to live in terror of being spontaneously disappeared to El Salvador by 'administrative error'. As per a recent New York Times article exposing the details of the debate within the Trump administration over how to manage the PR side of the Abrego Garcia blunder before it became public, officials from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 'discussed trying to portray Mr. Abrego Garcia as a 'leader' of the violent street gang MS-13, even though they could find no evidence to support the claim'. But a lack of evidence has never stopped folks who are not concerned with facts and reality in the first place. Trump officials have continued to insist on Abrego Garcia's affiliation with MS-13, while the president himself has unabashedly invoked a doctored photograph of tattoos on the man's knuckles. The administration has also relied heavily on the fact that, in 2019, the police department in Prince George's County, Maryland, decided that Abrego Garcia was a gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat, among other oh-so-incriminating behaviour. To be sure, the frequency with which US law enforcement outfits cite Chicago Bulls merchandise as alleged proof of gang membership would be laughable given the US basketball team's massive domestic and international fanbase – if, that is, such preposterous profiling tendencies did not directly translate into physical and psychological torment for Abrego Garcia and countless other individuals. In April, the US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return to the US. In addition to thus far failing to comply with that order, the administration has gone to ludicrous lengths to defy a separate order from US District Judge Paula Xinis that it provide details about what exactly it is doing to secure Abrego Garcia's release. Apparently irked by Judge Xinis's pushiness, Trump administration officials then went with the good old 'state secrets' excuse, which would enable the withholding of information regarding Abrego Garcia's case in order to safeguard 'national security' and the 'safety of the American people', as DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin put it. Bukele, for his part, has handled the Abrego Garcia situation with a petulant and vengeful machismo befitting the world's 'coolest dictator', taking to X to ridicule the wrongfully abducted and imprisoned man. During an April visit to his partner in crime in the Oval Office in Washington, Bukele made clear to reporters that he would not be lifting a finger on Abrego Garcia's behalf: 'How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?' Speaking of terrorism, it is worth recalling that, long before the current 'state of emergency' in El Salvador, the US had an outsized hand in supporting right-wing state terror in the country, where the civil war of 1979-92 killed more than 75,000 people. The majority of wartime atrocities were committed by the US-backed Salvadoran military and allied death squads, and countless Salvadorans fled north to the US, where MS-13 and other gangs formed as a means of communal self-defence. Following the war's end, the US undertook the mass deportation of gang members to a freshly devastated nation, paving the way for continued violence, migration, and deportation and culminating, of course, in the world's coolest dictatorship. As they say, nothing fuels the consolidation of power and evisceration of rights like a solid 'terrorist' enemy – and at the present moment, Abrego Garcia holds the dubious distinction of serving as that enemy for not one but two sociopathic heads of state. At the end of the day, though, Abrego Garcia is no Osama bin Laden; he is just a random guy whose calculated torment is meant as a warning to anyone who might be feeling too confident in the rule of law. Trump has already proposed sending US citizens to El Salvador for incarceration, as well – and to hell with any semblance of legality. To that end, the president has proposed that Bukele build more prisons, a project that presumably will not require much arm-twisting. Now, as the US government goes about annihilating the rights of foreign nationals and legal citizens alike, it is safe to assume that no one is safe. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US will lift steel tariffs to 50 percent at Pennsylvania rally
United States President Donald Trump has announced his administration is raising tariffs on steel imports from 25 percent to 50 percent. Speaking to steelworkers and supporters at a rally outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump framed his latest tariff increase as a boon to the domestic manufacturing industry. 'We're going to bring it from 25 percent to 50 percent, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,' Trump told the crowd. 'Nobody's going to get around that.' How that tariff increase would affect the free-trade deal with Canada and Mexico – or a separate trade deal struck earlier this month with the United Kingdom – remains unclear. Also left ambiguous was the nature of a deal struck between Nippon Steel, the largest steel producer in Japan, and the domestic company US Steel. Still, Trump played up the partnership between the two companies as a 'blockbuster agreement'. ' There's never been a $14bn investment in the history of the steel industry in the United States of America,' Trump said of the deal. Friday's rally was a return to the site of many election-season campaign events for Trump and his team. In 2024, Trump hinged his pitch for re-election on an appeal to working-class voters, including those in the Rust Belt region, a manufacturing hub that has declined in the face of the shifting industry trends and greater overseas competition. Key swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are located in the region, and they leaned Republican on election day, helping to propel Trump to a second term as president. Trump, in turn, has framed his 'America First' agenda as a policy platform designed to bolster the domestic manufacturing industry. Tariffs and other protectionist policies have played a prominent part in that agenda. In March, for instance, Trump announced an initial slate of 25-percent tariffs on steel and aluminium, causing major trading partners like Canada to respond with retaliatory measures. The following month, he also imposed a blanket 10-percent tariff on nearly all trade partners as well as higher country-specific import taxes. Those were quickly paused amid economic shockwaves and widespread criticism, while the 10-percent tariff remained in place. Trump has argued that the tariffs are a vital negotiating tool to encourage greater investment in the US economy. But economists have warned that attempting a 'hard reset' of the global economy – through dramatic tax hikes like tariffs – will likely blow back on US consumers, raising prices. Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the latest tariff hike on steel also signals that negotiating trade deals with Trump may result in 'limited benefits', given the sudden shifts in his policies. Further, Friday's announcement signals that Trump is likely to continue doubling down on tariffs, she said. 'The challenge is that hiking the steel tariffs may be good for steel workers, but it is bad for manufacturing and the energy sector, among others. So overall, it is not great for the US economy and adds uncertainty to the macro outlook,' Ziemba explained. Trump's tariff policies have also faced legal challenges in the US, where businesses, interest groups and states have all filed lawsuits to stop the tax hikes on imports. On Thursday, for instance, a federal court briefly ruled that Trump had illegally exercised emergency powers to impose his sweeping slate of international tariffs, only for an appeals court to temporarily pause that ruling a few hours later. Before the tariff hike was announced, Friday's rally in Pittsburgh was expected to focus on Nippon Steel's proposed acquisition of US Steel, the second largest steel producer in the country. 'We're here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,' Trump said at the outset of his speech. But the merger between Nippon Steel and US Steel had been controversial, and it was largely opposed by labour unions. Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump initially said he would block the acquisition, mirroring a similar position taken by his predecessor, former US President Joe Biden. However, he has since pivoted his stance and backed the deal. Last week, he announced an agreement that he said would grant Nippon only 'partial ownership' over US Steel. Speaking on Friday, Trump said the new deal would include Nippon making a '$14bn commitment to the future' of US Steel, although he did not provide details about how the ownership agreement would play out. 'Oh, you're gonna be happy,' Trump told the crowd of steelworkers. 'There's a lot of money coming your way.' The Republican leader also waxed poetic about the history of steel in the US, describing it as the backbone of the country's economy. 'The city of Pittsburgh used to produce more steel than most entire countries could produce, and it wasn't even close,' he said, adding: 'If you don't have steel, you don't have a country.' For its part, US Steel has not publicly communicated any details of a revamped deal to investors. Nippon, meanwhile, issued a statement approving the proposed 'partnership', but it also has not disclosed terms of the arrangement. The acquisition has split union workers, although the national United Steelworkers Union has been one of its leading opponents. In a statement prior to the rally, the union questioned whether the new arrangement makes 'any meaningful change' from the initial proposal. 'Nippon has maintained consistently that it would only invest in US Steel's facilities if it owned the company outright,' the union said in a statement, which noted firmer details had not yet been released. 'We've seen nothing in the reporting over the past few days suggesting that Nippon has walked back from this position.' The rally on Friday comes as Trump has sought to reassure his base of voters following a tumultuous start to his second term. Critics point out that steel prices have risen in the US by roughly 16 percent since Trump took office, and his Republican Party faces potentially punishing congressional elections in 2026.
