10 hours ago
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, in case on Trump birthright citizenship order
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, where all the justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in favour, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out.
The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states, as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
"Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens to prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority.
Complaints about 'judge shopping'
The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive, even without weighing its legal merits.
Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda.
The issue is intertwined with concerns of "judge shopping," where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice.
Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the decision as a win to stop "the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump."
Republicans and conservatives in particular have long complained about a single judge enjoining matters for the entire country, though Democrats were aggrieved during Joe Biden's administration when a single judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling on the abortion medication mifepristone. Ultimately, the Supreme Court essentially rejected that judge's interpretation in a 9-0 ruling.
No ruling on birthright citizenship
The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors."
The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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."
Not all countries automatically confer citizenship at birth. Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism.
Mobile users: View the document
(PDF KB)
(Text KB) CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
In Canada, citizenship is overwhelmingly granted to any child born on its soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, following the principle of jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil." There are a few exceptions, notably for the children of foreign diplomats.
The current Liberal government in Ottawa is looking through legislation to expand citizenship to children born outside of Canada to Canadian parents.
String of court rulings allow White House to enact agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January.
On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process.
