The High Court's Dilemma: Trump's Birthright Citizenship Battle and the Nationwide Injunction Ruckus
What's the right level of authority for federal judges in preventing presidential actions?
In the thick of political upheaval, the Supreme Court is grappling with a pivotal case that could seriously redefine presidential powers and the authority of federal courts. The spotlight is on the controversial executive order issued by President Trump, proposing the elimination of birthright citizenship in the United States, and whether federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions to halt such unconstitutional government actions.
On a heated Thursday, the justices convened for oral arguments, revealing their deep ideological divide. The outcome hangs in the balance, hinging on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Will they join the liberal trio to uphold the status quo or adopt the seemingly radical stance advocated by some of their colleagues, potentially undermining a significant check on presidential authority?
The crux of the matter is Trump's blatant attempt to restrict citizenship, limiting it only to those born to citizens or green card holders. Lawsuits challenging this order have been launched across various federal courts, all of which found the executive order unconstitutional and imposed nationwide injunctions, thereby preventing its implementation nationwide.
Politics in Play
Is it within the power of a single federal judge to halt Trump's plans denying citizenship to babies born to non-citizen parents? This is the burning question at the heart of the issue.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment declares that "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." Historically, this has meant that birth in the US guarantees citizenship, irrespective of the immigration status of the parents. This ruling was reaffirmed in 1898, in the Supreme Court case United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, which clarified the concept of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The court held that this phrase excluded only children born to enemy combatants or diplomats of foreign nations.
However, Trump's executive order seeks to alter this long-established norm. Questions have been raised about the constitutional validity of such an order, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighting four Supreme Court precedents that support the notion of birthright citizenship. Nevertheless, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, maintained that the court should focus solely on the issue of whether a federal district court can enforce a nationwide injunction against an executive order.
A Constitutional Crisis in the Making?
As the oral arguments unfolded, there were initial discussions about the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. Yet, the focus soon shifted towards the jailbreaking potential of nationwide injunctions. Some justices, such as Justice Elena Kagan, pointed out that if an executive order is unconstitutional, it should be halted, regardless of its scope.
The Supreme Court is at a crossroads. A decision against nationwide injunctions could weaken the federal judiciary's ability to check unconstitutional executive actions, potentially paving the way for a wave of chaotic and conflicting policies across the country. As Gorsuch himself admitted, such a situation would lead to a chaotic patchwork of citizenship rules, a situation he found worrying.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an opinion contributor.
Further Readings
Voices: Contributor: Lower-court judges have no business setting the law of the landSupreme Court to Hear Trump's Proposed Limits on Birthright CitizenshipVoices: Contributor: Will the Supreme Court check Trump's unconstitutional acts? It may come down to one justice
- The controversy over Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is not just a legal issue, but also a political dilemma, raising questions about the power of federal courts and the role of the government.
- The Supreme Court's decision on President Trump's executive order could set a precedent for future presidential powers and the balance of authority between the executive and the federal courts.
- In the ongoing debate about birthright citizenship, some argue that a single federal judge does not have the power to halt the president's plans affecting the citizenship of babies born to non-citizen parents.
- The interpretation of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause has been a point of contention in the fight for birthright citizenship, with some maintaining that it excludes only children born to enemy combatants or diplomats of foreign nations.
- The Supreme Court is facing a constitutional crisis as the debate shifts from the legality of Trump's birthright citizenship executive order to the implications of nationwide injunctions on the federal judiciary's role in checking unconstitutional executive actions.
- Editorial pieces discuss the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's proposed limits on birthright citizenship and whether the court will serve as a check on the president's unconstitutional acts.
