The situation as we understand it today is that the Supreme Court is weighing whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to provisionally take effect across most of the United States. These modifications, if enacted, could potentially be deemed unconstitutional in the future.
Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since President Trump began his second term in January. The Supreme Court justices have spent over two hours debating the Trump administration’s emergency appeals against lower court orders that have held the citizenship restrictions nationwide. Birthright citizenship is but one of the matters, many connected with immigration, that the administration has asked the court to urgently address, following opposition from lower courts to Trump’s agenda.
President Trump signed an executive order denying citizenship to children born to individuals who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily, on the first day of his second term. This order clashes with a Supreme Court ruling from 1898 that affirmed the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil save for a few exceptions that are not pertinent to this case.
States, immigrants, and rights groups promptly sued, resulting in lower courts barring enforcement of the order while the lawsuits proceed. The ongoing contention revolves around the rules that apply in the interim as the lawsuits proceed.
The court’s liberal justices seemed firmly in support of the lower court rulings, asserting that the changes to citizenship that Trump seeks to make would disrupt the established understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for over 125 years. However, if the government wins today’s arguments, the order could still be enforced against individuals who have not filed lawsuits.
Several conservative justices, possibly open to limiting nationwide injunctions, also sought to understand the practical effects of such a decision and the speed with which the court might reach a final decision on Trump’s executive order. The Trump administration, similar to the Biden administration, has expressed frustration that judges are exceeding their authority by issuing orders that extend beyond the parties before the court.
This development follows earlier reports that some children might become “stateless,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out. These children could be denied citizenship in the U.S. as well as in the countries their parents have fled to escape persecution. This raises important questions about the potential consequences of these restrictions.
The court might consider replacing nationwide injunctions with certification of a class action, a lawsuit in which individuals represent a much larger group of similarly situated people. However, under questioning, Solicitor General D. John Sauer indicated that the Trump administration might oppose such a lawsuit or potentially try to slow down class actions.
Supreme Court arguments over emergency appeals are rare, and the court typically addresses the underlying substance of a dispute. However, the administration has not asked the court to take on the larger issue now, and it remains unclear how long inconsistent rules on citizenship would apply to children born in the U.S. should the court side with the administration over nationwide injunctions. A decision is expected by the end of June.
The facts, as we now know them, indicate that this issue of birthright citizenship and its potential amendment remains a contentious one, with significant implications for the nation’s future.