The ongoing legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's proposed changes to birthright citizenship has reached the Supreme Court, with significant implications for future immigration policies. While the case does not directly challenge the constitutionality of the president's order regarding birthright citizenship, it highlights a broader conflict over executive power and judicial authority. Opponents argue that this order contradicts the 14th Amendment, past court decisions, and the fundamental principles of American history.
The Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether to lift or limit the nationwide injunctions imposed by three lower-court judges that have blocked the implementation of the Trump administration's policy. These injunctions have prevented the administration from enforcing changes that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
In response to the injunctions, the Justice Department has argued that such sweeping orders undermine the president's ability to govern effectively. Since the start of Trump's presidency, there have been 39 nationwide injunctions against various policies, which the administration claims have reached "epidemic proportions." The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, emphasized in a recent filing that "the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere."
Nationwide injunctions serve as temporary measures that halt the enforcement of a policy while legal challenges are underway. Historically, such injunctions were rare before the 1960s, but their usage has significantly increased as presidents have turned to executive orders in the face of a divided Congress. Data from the Harvard Law Review indicates that during their respective terms, President George W. Bush faced six injunctions, President Barack Obama had twelve, and President Trump encountered a staggering 64 injunctions, with President Biden receiving 14 in his tenure.
The prevalence of these injunctions has added pressure on the Supreme Court to respond quickly to requests for emergency relief from the administration. The decision to hear this case at a late point in the term indicates that the justices recognize the importance of the matter.
Central to this case is the question of whether the president can legally deny automatic citizenship to infants born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The 14th Amendment, established after the Civil War, guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." This provision was designed to reverse the infamous Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans.
Supporters of the Trump administration argue that unauthorized immigrants do not qualify as being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government and thus can be excluded from this citizenship guarantee. However, many legal experts and states opposing the policy contend that this interpretation would require a radical reexamination of the 14th Amendment and contradict established Supreme Court rulings that affirm citizenship for almost all individuals born on U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court has historically upheld the principle of birthright citizenship. In a landmark 1898 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, affirming that he was a U.S. citizen despite being born to Chinese immigrant parents. The ruling emphasized that excluding children born in the U.S. from citizenship would unjustly deny citizenship to a significant number of individuals with diverse ancestral backgrounds.
Several Supreme Court justices have expressed reservations regarding the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. They argue that such broad orders complicate the legal landscape and can result in rushed decisions based on limited information. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas has referred to nationwide injunctions as "legally and historically dubious," while Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that these injunctions circumvent standard judicial processes.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prohibiting these types of injunctions may ultimately be the best legal approach, regardless of their impact on the Court’s emergency docket. Justice Elena Kagan has also voiced bipartisan concerns, asserting that it is untenable for a single district judge to halt a nationwide policy indefinitely.
Opponents of the administration's policy argue that allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its changes to birthright citizenship could lead to significant chaos and inconsistency across states. For example, a child born to noncitizen parents in a state like New Jersey, which is part of the lawsuit, would be recognized as a citizen, while a similar child born in Tennessee, which did not join the challenge, could be classified as a deportable noncitizen.
Advocates for nationwide injunctions argue that these legal measures are essential to ensure uniformity in applying citizenship laws, particularly in an area as crucial as citizenship. The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and CASA, representing hundreds of thousands of members, contend that maintaining a consistent policy is vital and that uncertainty around citizenship should not vary based on state lines.
The Supreme Court's decision on the issue of birthright citizenship and the use of nationwide injunctions will have profound implications for immigration policy and executive authority in the United States. As the case unfolds, it raises critical questions about the balance of power among branches of government and the foundational principles of citizenship in America.
