Supreme Court to review Trump's attempt to block birthright citizenship

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it will review former President Donald Trumps attempt to alter the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship. A decision favoring the administration could overturn the automatic citizenship granted to individuals born in the United States, irrespective of their parents immigration status.

Although the Court has recently sided with the administration on several Trump-era policies, uncertainty remains regarding this case. The Justice Departments cautious legal approach indicates concerns about how the justices may rule. Unlike other blocked executive policies, the administration initially pursued a limited appeal focused on procedural issues, specifically the use of nationwide injunctions, rather than directly defending the legality of the citizenship directive.

Earlier this year, federal judges across the country struck down Trumps executive order on birthright citizenship. In response, the administration sought a procedural ruling to restrict nationwide injunctions rather than immediately seeking Supreme Court approval for the policy itself. In June, the Court issued a 6-3 decision favoring the administration on the procedural matter, without addressing the underlying constitutional questions. In dissent, the three liberal justices criticized the majority for rewarding gamesmanship, noting that proving the orders constitutionality would be nearly impossible given the text of the Constitution, historical precedent, federal law, and past executive practices.

The upcoming Supreme Court review will directly address the merits of Trumps policy. The 14th Amendment states: 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. Trumps order interprets subject to the jurisdiction thereof as grounds to deny citizenship in two scenarios: when a mother is unlawfully present and the father is not a citizen or permanent resident, and when a mother is legally but temporarily present in the U.S. with a father who is not a citizen or permanent resident.

In seeking review, the administration argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their children, not to children of undocumented or temporarily present immigrants. The government requested that the Court hear two cases: one involving a group of states (Trump v. Washington) and another involving individual plaintiffs (Trump v. Barbara).

The states involved in the Washington case supported Supreme Court review, citing the Courts preference for quickly resolving important legal questions, even though they acknowledged the issue might already be settled. They referenced the 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen, establishing a lasting precedent. Similarly, the Barbara plaintiffs opposed review, arguing that the case had already been addressed by Wong Kim Ark, but agreed that if the Court accepted review, both cases should be heard.

The Supreme Courts recent order confirmed it will hear the Barbara case. Legal observers note that even if the Court doubts the merits of Trumps argument, it may still review the case due to its national significance and the widespread litigation surrounding the issue. The hearing is expected in the spring, with a decision likely by early July.

Author: Zoe Harrison