birthright

The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments early next year, with a ruling in June on a matter that has been blocked by several lower courts as being unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide the legality of President Donald Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, as the Republican administration continues its broad immigration crackdown.

Following its announcement on Friday, the conservative-dominated court did not set a date for oral arguments in the blockbuster case, but it is likely to be early next year, with a ruling in June.

Several lower courts have blocked as unconstitutional Trump’s attempt to put restrictions on the law that states that anyone born on US soil is automatically an American citizen.

Trump signed an executive order on January 20, his first day in office, decreeing that children born to parents in the US illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become US citizens.

Lower courts have ruled the order to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which 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.”

Trump’s executive order was premised on the idea that anyone in the US illegally, or on a visa, was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country, and therefore excluded from this category.

The Supreme Court rejected such a narrow definition in a landmark 1898 case.

The Trump administration has also argued that the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, addresses the rights of former slaves and not the children of undocumented migrants or temporary US visitors.

In a brief with the court, Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, argued that “the erroneous extension of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens has caused substantial harm to the United States”.

“Most obviously, it has impaired the United States’ territorial integrity by creating a strong incentive for illegal immigration,” Sauer said.

Trump’s executive order had been due to come into effect on February 19, but it was halted after federal judges ruled against the administration in multiple lawsuits.

District Judge John Coughenour, who heard the case in Washington state, described the president’s executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional”.

Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, and three of the justices were appointed by Trump.

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the legal challenges to the attempt to end birthright citizenship, said she is hopeful the top court will “strike down this harmful order once and for all”.

“Federal courts around the country have consistently rejected President Trump’s attempts to strip away this core constitutional protection,” Wang said.

“The president’s action goes against a core American right that has been a part of our Constitution for over 150 years.”

The Supreme Court has sided with Trump in a series of decisions this year, allowing various policies to take effect after they were impeded by lower courts that cast doubt on their legality.

Among these policies were Trump’s revocation of temporary legal protections on humanitarian grounds for hundreds of thousands of migrants, deportations of migrants to countries other than their own and domestic immigration enforcement raids.

Dec. 5 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Friday said it will hear arguments for and against President Donald Trump‘s executive order ending birthright citizenship.

The court will rule on the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

The court likely will schedule oral arguments in April and render its judgment by the end of June, Politico reported.

Trump on Jan. 20 signed the executive order to end birthright citizenship, which deprives citizenship for children born in the United States and its territories and whose parents are “undocumented immigrants” and foreigners holding visas that grant them limited visitation to the United States.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in July ruled 2-1 that the president’s executive order is unconstitutional after it was challenged in federal district courts, according to The New York Times.

They also ruled the executive order runs counter to an 1898 Supreme Court ruling that many have interpreted to mean only the children of foreign diplomats are excluded from birthright citizenship.

The contested 14th Amendment clause says: “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.”

After winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump told NBC News the clause’s legal interpretation is “ridiculous” and said it would have to change.

The executive order ending birthright citizenship was to take effect 30 days after the president signed it on the first day of his second term in office.

The legal challenge blocked it from taking effect, which the court would overturn, along with the court’s 1898 decision, if it rules in the Trump administration’s favor on the matter.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for newborns whose parents are here illegally or temporarily will get a full hearing before the Supreme Court.

The justices agreed Friday to hear arguments on Trump’s proposal after judges across the nation had declared it unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect.

Trump’s lawyers contended the government had been misreading the 14th Amendment for at least a century.

He proposed a change because “the President recognized that automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration,” they told the court.

“Not only do such children automatically become full citizens, but their citizenship is often promptly asserted to impede the removal of their illegal-alien parents,” argued Solicitor Gen. J. Dean Sauer.

The 14th Amendment of 1868 begins with the words, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

The amendment formally overturned the Dred Scott decision in which the court had said that free Black people were not citizens.

The key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been understood to mean “subject to the laws” of the United States,” and that includes nearly everyone here except foreign diplomats.

But Trump’s lawyers argued that the phrase was understood in 1868 to refer more narrowly to persons who had a political allegiance to the United States, rather than to a foreign country.

Based on that understanding, Trump’s lawyer contended the “Citizenship Clause was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and temporary visitors.”

He said “near-automatic citizenship has spawned an industry of modern ‘birth tourism,’ by which foreigners travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children.”

In rejecting Trump’s proposal, lawyers and judges have pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents and later had his citizenship confirmed by the court.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. … We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

Trump’s lawyers waved aside that precedent by arguing that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled” in California. He said the court’s opinion repeatedly referred to that fact, suggesting that birthright citizenship was limited to parents who were legal residents, not those who were here illegally or temporarily.

The court will likely hear arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara in March and issue a ruling by late June.

If the court were to uphold Trump’s proposal, it would operate “on a prospective basis only,” Sauer said.

It would deny citizenship to babies whose mother or father is neither a citizen nor “lawful permanent resident,” and it would exclude children of mothers who were “visiting on a student, work or tourist visa.”