How does the Supreme Court decision on property ownership impact individuals and groups?
Unraveling Trump's Birthright Citizenship Battle: A Breakdown
The Initial Skirmish
With a casual stroke of his black Sharpie, Donald Trump set pen to paper on his first day back in office in January, initiating an order aimed to abolish birthright citizenship. Targeting the established principle in the U.S. Constitution, this piece of less than 800 words aimed to revoke the status of any child born in the United States as an American citizen, even if their parents lacked legal migratory status.
Swiftly challenged in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, federal courts temporarily halted the order’s implementation nationwide. Judge John Coughenour, in Seattle, even branded the order as "manifestly unconstitutional."
A Legislation Showdown
The question the Supreme Court grappled with was whether these federal judges had overstepped their bounds by halting Trump’s order. On June 27, 2025, 6 out of 9 justices concurred that these judges indeed had exceeded their authority, reining in their authority to issue universal injunctions and limiting their scope to specific cases.
Immediate Aftermath
The decision restricted the previously broad blocks preventing enforcement of Trump’s order, halting it for only a select few. The most immediate consequences would materialize in 30 days, with most children of undocumented parents no longer receiving automatic U.S. citizenship, echoing a profound if temporary change.
The Battle Ahead
Dissident voices refute the order’s constitutional validity, inspiring a class action lawsuit. Hélène Mayrand, a law professor at the University of Sherbrooke, affirms that despite the Supreme Court's decision, the opposition remains resolute on prosecuting the order on its merits, anticipating a strong case and a high chance of success.
Beyond the U.S. Borders
In Canada, birthright citizenship isn't written into the Constitution, but rather in ordinary law—the Citizenship Act. Modifying this law would be more straightforward than in the U.S., though doing so would counter our nation's history and vision of citizenship.
Suggested Reading
- The Mastermind Behind Trump's Immigration Policies: A White Supremacist
- A Rising Tide of Repression: Trump's Reach Across America
- Escalating Tensions: Trump's Militarization of the Southern Border
Looking Forward
M. Mayrand foresees lingering tension as the U.S. executive and judicial powers face off, with the Supreme Court acknowledging the gravity of the matter and the potential for a fundamental shake-up of American values. The future of birthright citizenship remains entwined in this struggle for power and principle.
Sources:- Journal du Montréal (June 27, 2025): U.S. Supreme Court: Slimsjudgement allows continuation of Trump's attack on birthright citizenship- Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2025): Supreme Court ruling allows Trump's birthright citizenship order to go forward, but with limits- New York Times (June 27, 2025): With a 6-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court lifts nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order, yet leaves constitutional questions unresolved
Also Explore
- The Unpopular President: Trump's Fading Support in Swing States
- The Collapse of U.S.-Canada Trade Negotiations: Trump's Tariff Threats
- The Schoolbook Showdown: Trump's Opposition to LGBTQ+ Materials in Education
Enrichment Data:
The current state of President Trump's executive order regarding the termination of birthright citizenship is that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on June 27, 2025, granting Trump a significant victory by reducing the nationwide injunctions that had obstructed the order's execution. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court established that federal courts lack broad authority to issue universal injunctions against executive actions, requiring them to restrict their rulings to specific instances. Consequently, the scope of the previous broad blocks preventing enforcement of Trump's order has been narrowed, but some injunctions may remain in place under more restrictive circumstances.
The executive order seeks to rescind the long-established principle of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents. Despite the order being widely labeled as unconstitutional by the courts and legal experts, prior district court rulings have struck it down as a violation of the 14th Amendment and federal law. The Supreme Court's majority opinion accentuated the limits on judicial power in halting executive action but refrained from delivering a definitive verdict on the constitutional merits of the order, leaving this question unsettled.
Opposition groups continue to fight the order, asserting that it represents a rejection of constitutional principles and American values, and they remain committed to preventing its implementation and safeguarding the 14th Amendment rights of children born in the United States to undocumented parents. Given the Supreme Court's decision, these opponents may concentrate on challenging the order in individual jurisdictions where injunctions are still in place or pursue further appeals and lobbying efforts to protect birthright citizenship under the Constitution.
This situation remains dynamic, and further court rulings and legal maneuvers are expected as the case continues to navigate the judicial system.
The government's decision regarding President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, aiming to revoke the status of children born in the United States to noncitizen parents, has faced opposition in the form of a class action lawsuit. Hélène Mayrand, a law professor at the University of Sherbrooke, anticipates a strong case to be made against the order, with a high chance of success, implying ongoing discord between the executive and judicial powers over this contentious policy-and-legislation matter.
Meanwhile, in Canada, where birthright citizenship isn't enshrined in the Constitution but in ordinary law, modifying the Citizenship Act to mirror Trump's executive order would counter the nation's historical and philosophical understanding of citizenship. This potential change in Canada highlights the broader implications and general-news significance of the ongoing battle over birthright citizenship, both within the United States and across its borders.
