The Supreme Court is deliberating on an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump regarding birthright citizenship, a significant legal matter that has sparked widespread debate. On his first day back in the White House this January, Trump signed an executive order to. This order purports to argue that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer American citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, going against longstanding practices.
Trump’s directive has faced substantial legal challenges. Three federal district court lawsuits quickly challenged the executive order. Consequently, the courts ruled to prevent its implementation. More than 20 states and two cities opened the batting for two of these cases. The third case was brought by five pregnant noncitizens and two immigrants’ rights advocacy groups. In each case, all three district courts granted injunctions against Trump’s order. They argued that it would violate the rights of those most impacted.
The legal chaos surrounding Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order has dominated media headlines. This is particularly the case now that the Supreme Court is about to plunge into the parallel cases. As a result, the justices have been left with the difficult job of assessing the effects of the executive order and determining whether it is unconstitutional. In a recent oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson started to frame those critical queries about the foundation for such executive overreach.
“Does every single person affected by his EO have to bring their own suit?” – Kagan
Justice Brown-Jackson used this opportunity to push back against the administration’s position. She cautioned that this direction would lead to a “dangerous legal landscape.”
“The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch-me-if-you-can’ kind of regime,” – Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson
Trump has recently made public statements on the current litigation, emphasizing the importance of the case in a recent social media post. He referred to it as a “big case today in the United States Supreme Court,” indicating his investment in the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Beyond these recent battles over birthright citizenship, there have been many other legal challenges and controversies surrounding Trump’s administration. Just last month, though, he announced that he would be withdrawing all sanctions on Syria—a decision that turned heads during a time of high geopolitical tensions. Just last year, Trump lauded a $600 billion investment in Saudi Arabia. He made this announcement, the first of its kind for the US, with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during his Nowheristan trip to Riyadh.
Furthermore, Trump’s administration cut an additional $450 million in grants to Harvard University, heightening tensions in higher education funding debates. Moreover, a new federal trade court is still dealing with Trump’s tariffs, one of the most highly charged economic discussions of all time.
The effect of Trump’s executive orders goes much further than the citizenship question. As with Trump’s nominees, the Department of Justice hit significant roadblocks in getting Trump’s nominees confirmed. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s political machinations in response to a Qatari jet incident threw major hurdles. The actions in all three cases are affirmed by three federal circuit courts of appeals. At least, until the Supreme Court’s present review may reshape the scope and reach of executive authority.
The justices are clearly still very much working through this complex and controversial issue. In doing so, they need to determine the limits of executive power and the extent to which the judiciary should check that power. Legal observers are closely watching to see how the Court approaches Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. This ruling has the potential to redefine immigration policy and constitutional interpretation for decades to come.
Leave a Reply