High Court to debate Trump's strategy for revoking birthright citizenship in the month of May.
Fresh Take:
The Supreme Court is ready to dive into the heated debate over President Trump's petition to limit birthright citizenship, setting the date for oral arguments on May 15. This case, brimming with political significance, could potentially allow Trump to enforce a policy that lower courts have deemed "blatantly unconstitutional."
While Trump's administration is seeking a "modest" request to curb lower court orders against their plans, the court's decision to hear this case is noteworthy. A victory for Trump would pave the way for his controversial policy to be implemented nationwide.
The main issue before the justices is whether district courts should be permitted to issue nationwide injunctions, an issue the court might have previously shied away from due to its politically charged nature.
Trump has been vocal about his displeasure towards lower court temporary orders since he began his second term, when he was handed a series of adverse rulings that slowed his agenda.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, observes that it would be astonishing if the justices used this case to settle the issue of nationwide injunctions. Such a decision could allow an unconstitutional policy to be enforced on a near-universal scale.
Birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for over a century, has been a contentious topic for Trump. He issued an executive order on his first day back in the White House, aiming to bar the government from recognizing citizenship for people born in the U.S. to foreign parents. This move prompted a flurry of lawsuits, with lower courts issuing sweeping injunctions requiring Trump to halt implementation of his birthright citizenship order.
In response, Trump has reframed his appeal as a request to limit the scope of the lower court orders, rather than challenging the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. While this approach might find some bipartisan support in a different context, it carries significant practical implications.
A landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898, US v. Wong Kim Ark, affirmed the idea that people born in the United States are citizens. The modern court hasn't hinted at a desire to revisit that holding. However, some conservatives question this long-held view, arguing that foreign national parents who are in the U.S. illegally may not meet the requirement of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
In the past, the Department of Justice has complained about lower courts overstepping their authority by handing down nationwide injunctions. However, opponents of Trump's birthright citizenship policy argue that, given the flagrantly unconstitutional nature of Trump's efforts, nationwide action is warranted to prevent inconsistent, regionally disparate citizenship rules.
As of now, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Trump's specific request to end birthright citizenship. That decision will follow the outcome of the May arguments. Stay tuned for updates on this evolving legal battle.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Resources:[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-legal-challenge/index.html[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html[3] https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-challenge-supreme-court-hearing-f6fedb52-12f8-4fef-9b0c-e4c345473184.html[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/17/trump-asks-supreme-court-let-him-enforce-birthright-citizenship-order/
- The Supreme Court's decision to hear President Trump's petition challenging birthright citizenship policy could potentially allow for the enforcement of a policy deemed "blatantly unconstitutional" by lower courts.2.While Trump's administration seeks to curb lower court orders, the court's focus on the issue of nationwide injunctions might have implications for the implementation of contentious policies, such as Trump's controversial birthright citizenship policy.
- Ongoing legal disputes surrounding Trump's birthright citizenship order have resulted in car-accidents, general-news, and crime-and-justice headlines, due to the numerous lawsuits and adverse rulings that have slowed Trump's agenda.4.A victory for Trump would set a precedent for policies that have been deemed "unconstitutional," altering the landscape of policy-and-legislation and war-and-conflicts.
- The potential impact of this legal battle, which is brimming with political significance, extends beyond the immediate conflict over birthright citizenship and could have far-reaching consequences for the American legal system.
- The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of Trump's specific request to end birthright citizenship will likely have a lasting effect on immigration policy, cracking the foundation of a cornerstone policy that has been in place for over a century.
