US Supreme Court seen on October 9, 2024 (Photo: Jane Norman/State Newsroom)
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday was decided in a massive decision that was suppressed by a national injunction by several lower courts that banned birthright citizenship.
The High Court refused to determine the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but said an executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright could come into effect within 30 days of Friday’s ruling in a state that initially failed to sue.
The ruling is likely to hamper other legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions, where a nationwide injunction is being sought.
In a 6-3 decision, conservative justice found that “the national injunction is likely beyond the fair powers Congress has given federal courts.”
“The court will grant government applications for partial stays in the injunction listed below, but will only give to each plaintiff to a wider range than necessary to provide full relief to the position of appeal.” According to a ruling written by Judge Amy Connie Barrett.
The dispute in the courts was linked to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional rights to birthright, but the Trump administration called on the High Court to focus on its behalf. Problems of interim injunction It is permitted by the lower court.
“No application will be filed — therefore the court will not address the question of whether an executive order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” the ruling refers to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born in US soil.
The order directs the lower court to “moves quickly to ensure that injunctions conform to this rule and otherwise comply with the principle of fairness with respect to each plaintiff.”
National injunctions are more than twice as high
During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, judges issued a nationwide injunction until April 29th. According to the Congressional Research Service.
“The lower courts need to determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so leave it to consider these and related arguments,” the ruling.
A narrow injunction could refer to a class action lawsuit.
Barrett argued that the nationwide injunction would not provide any further relief for banning the enforcement of Trump’s executive orders against pregnant people who fear that their children will be denied citizenship, not U.S. citizens.
“Her child will not be denied citizenship, and extending the injunction to cover everyone who is similarly located will not further complete her relief,” the ruling said. “Therefore, individual and association respondents are incorrect to characterize universal injunctions simply as an application of the full principle of trust.”
Under natural citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
Recently, if birthright citizenship is eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year will not be granted US citizenship rights, according to the following: study The Institute for Transition Policy Research, a Think Tank.
Research shows that by 2045 it will effectively create classes of 2.7 million stateless people.
In an oral debate last month, Attorney General D. John Sauer, who claimed on behalf of the Trump administration, argued that it is unconstitutional for federal judges to issue a national injunction. Instead, he Injunctions should be restricted To those who brought challenges.
Origins of the birthright citizenship case
This incident, Trump vs. Casa, was merged from three cases.
One was brought by a Maryland immigration rights group and several pregnant women who were not US citizens who filed a lawsuit in Maryland. The second comes from four states that filed lawsuits in Washington: Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. And the third came from 18 Democrat Attorney Generals who submitted assignments in Massachusetts.
These 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and San Francisco counties and cities also participated.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.
In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld The 14th Amendment, US vs Wong Kim Ark extends birthright citizenship.
The case of the 19th centuryArk was born to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China in San Francisco, California, but had legal authority in the United States, including temporary visas. Ark was born in California, but his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. After returning to California, he was denied re-entered due to China’s exclusion law, a racist law designed to limit and restrict almost all immigrants of Chinese citizens.
When his case went to the Supreme Court, the High Court held that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents would automatically become citizens at birth.
The Trump administration argued that the 1898 incident was misinterpreted and pointed to a specific phrase. “Subject of jurisdiction” in the United States.
Government lawyers argue that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship does not apply to people in the United States without a legal or temporary legal status that is “the subject of jurisdiction” in the country of origin.
This is an updated development report.
