By Flynn Demapendan-Espana
President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court on May 15. This case is viewed as a further push and driving point onto Trump’s agenda on immigration and other issues.
This case questions whether or not lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders for the entire country—as they are doing for this case. The Supreme Court justices did not reach a certain consensus as they considered both of the sides.
The U.S. Solicitor General stated that lower courts are being overstepped in their authority, saying the power should be regulated. On the other hand, the New Jersey Solicitor General argues on behalf of the group of states, stating that siding with Trump would create a patchwork system of citizenship.
This order would create “chaos on the ground”, argued lawyer Jeremy Feigenbaum. It is unclear when the court will issue their decision. If the Supreme Court decides to agree with Trump, then Trump could continue his use of executive orders to continue on with his campaign promises without having to wait for congressional approval.
Justices along the ideological range seemed to grapple between both of the issues during the hearing. A questioning was brought up of the lower court’s power to stop a presidential order nationwide. The justices considered the merits of the birthright citizenship order on its own. It is argued to violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
Eliminating the option for nationwide injunctions could simulate a problem in the citizenship system, where an individual could have status in one state, but then lose it when crossing into another. “Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides,” says Feigenabum.
Arguing on the behalf of states alien harm from the executive order, Feigenbaum said that siding with the Trump Administration on this matter would be “impractical and unconstitutional”. He also stated that the upcoming standard would have a harmful impact on distribution of government benefits, such as Medicaid, immigration enforcement, and maintaining accurate statistics.
As the justices proposed the questions to the lawyers, a large group of protesters gathered at the outside to voice their opposition against Trump’s immigration policies.“This is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process,” said Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, when she joined the protesters outside and read from the U.S. Constitution.
Having a hearing held in May is unusual for the Supreme Court. It was an emergency hearing, and there is no specific indication of when it may rule. Many legal experts explained that the President does not have the power to end birthright citizenship because it is a guarantee by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So, if Trump does end up winning the case, he may have to fight off other legal challenges.
To be more specific, the 14th Amendmendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Although, in the executive order, Trump argued that the phrase “jurisdiction thereof” meant that automatic citizenship did not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, or people in the country temporarily.
Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, however, have issued nationwide—or universal—injunctions that blocked the order from being enforced. The injunctions had prompted the Trump Administration to argue that the lower courts have exceeded their powers.
The Trump Administration has asked the court to rule that the injunctions can only apply to those immigrants named in the case or to the plaintiff states—which would allow the government to at least partly carry out Trump’s order even as many legal battles continue.
Nearly 40 different court injunctions have been filed since the beginning of the second Trump Administration, according to the Justice Department. A possible end of birthright citizenship could impact tens of thousands of children in the U.S. One of the lawsuits argued that it would “impose second-class status” on a generation of people who were born and have only lived in the U.S.
“There is no guarantee that the countries where their parents are from would take them back,” said Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. “It would not even be clear where the government could deport them to.”
beniciapaw.com 