In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on Friday granted a temporary victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his administration to move forward with its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship.
The ruling, decided with a 6-3 vote, enables the Trump administration to request the narrowing of nationwide injunctions imposed by lower courts, allowing them to apply only to the states, groups, and individuals involved in the lawsuits.
While this means that the proposal regarding birthright citizenship could advance in part, its specifics remain uncertain. Legal experts suggest that avenues for blocking the plan may still exist through other court challenges.
The immediate aftermath of the ruling triggered a swift response from plaintiffs fighting against the executive order. Lawyers for one plaintiff group promptly filed an amended lawsuit, and the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a new class-action lawsuit to oppose the implementation of the birthright proposal.
Traditionally, legal scholars across the political spectrum have maintained that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees automatic citizenship to almost anyone born within the United States.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not assess the legal merits of Trump’s proposal but empowered the administration to limit other nationwide injunctions imposed by lower courts in relation to various executive branch actions.
In comments made from the White House, President Donald Trump praised the ruling as a monumental victory for the Constitution and the rule of law, arguing that it curtails what he sees as excessive judicial interference in executive matters.
When asked whether the ruling risked consolidating too much power in the presidency, Trump contended that it was a restoration of constitutional principles, stating, “This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it’s all about.”
The Court’s ruling reflected a divide along ideological lines, with the conservative justices forming the majority and their liberal counterparts dissenting.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that when a court finds that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the solution is not to overextend judicial power by issuing broad injunctions.
However, Barrett clarified that injunctions within birthright citizenship cases should not exceed what is necessary, and lower courts are instructed to expedite their assessments of how broad such injunctions can be.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, characterizing the ruling as a setback for the rule of law and an endorsement of judicial overreach by the executive.
Sotomayor expressed concern that federal courts would face limitations on issuing nationwide injunctions, yet she called on possible plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits, a potential avenue the court had left open.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a dissenting opinion, describing the ruling as an existential threat to the rule of law.
At present, the policy continues to be blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate lawsuit that is not currently before the Supreme Court.
According to the court’s guidelines, the executive order is set to take effect in 30 days. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, whose state challenged the president’s proposal, expressed confidence that the executive order would never be implemented.
“And in the meantime, our fight continues,” Platkin stated.
William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, announced that his group and others involved in the lawsuit have swiftly filed for class certification in district court on behalf of children and their parents affected by Trump’s executive order.
He asserted that despite the Supreme Court’s decision, class actions would remain a potent method for seeking relief, maintaining that this strategy could be just as effective as the previous nationwide injunction.
The Trump administration and its supporters have been vocally critical of judges who have blocked parts of the president’s agenda, although the use of nationwide injunctions by courts has emerged as a more frequent occurrence in recent years.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” with the notable exception of children of diplomats.
Trump’s proposal seeks to redefine this language, limiting citizenship to those born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Since the issuance of the executive order on his first day in office, it has faced immediate legal challenges, and every court that has reviewed it thus far has blocked its implementation.
The cases before the Supreme Court originated from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
Support for Trump’s plan includes backing from 21 other states, underscoring the contentious nature of the issue in American politics.
Justice Department officials have expressed frustration over the numerous nationwide injunctions thwarting their attempts to implement a variety of executive actions, which have included policies aimed at tightening immigration and restructuring federal agencies.
Judges’ resort to nationwide injunctions illustrates a growing judicial response to perceived overreach in the executive branch’s exercise of power, a phenomenon that has spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent history.
image source from：nbcnews
