Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear oral arguments on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally.
The order, signed by Trump in January shortly after taking office, declares that such children should not be granted automatic US citizenship. The directive quickly drew legal challenges from opponents who argue it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. That amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Critics say the language is clear and leaves no room for excluding children based on their parents’ immigration status. However, members of the Trump administration have argued that the amendment has been misinterpreted and should not apply to the children of illegal immigrants, who remain citizens of other countries.
Lower courts placed the order on hold following lawsuits, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case after the Trump administration requested it lift or adjust the nationwide injunctions put in place. Oral arguments are scheduled to begin on May 15, with a decision expected by July.
The court will initially consider whether lower-court judges exceeded their authority by implementing sweeping nationwide injunctions, and has delayed addressing the actual legal merits of the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship plan, according to the Daily Wire. The Trump administration has repeatedly expressed frustration over the growing use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges, which have delayed or halted the implementation of several policies across the country.
On March 13, the administration formally petitioned the Supreme Court to put the judges’ orders on hold and allow the administration to enforce the order except with regard to the individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that nationwide injunctions in these cases “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.” She asked the justices to “declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”
