Supreme Court to decide if Trump can limit the constitutional right to citizenship at birth

WASHINGTON — In a blockbuster ruling, the Supreme Court agreed Friday to rule on the legality of President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to revoke automatic birthright citizenship for nearly everyone born in the United States.

The final ruling in a New Hampshire case, expected by the end of June, will likely conclusively determine whether Trump’s ambitious proposal can move forward.

The case sets up a major clash between a president whose aggressive use of executive power has been a defining feature of his second term and a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has so far mostly avoided direct clashes with the White House.

Birthright citizenship has long been considered required under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.” »

This language was included in the constitutional amendment passed after the Civil War to ensure that former black slaves and their children were recognized as citizens.

Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have generally assumed the phrase to be explicit, with the exception of people born to foreign diplomats, hostile invading forces, and members of certain Native American tribes.

But Trump, as part of his crackdown on immigration, has sought to unravel this historical understanding, adopting a previously fringe theory championed by anti-immigration activists.

According to the administration, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident. In this scenario, this right would not apply to babies born to temporary visitors who entered the country legally or to people who entered the country illegally.

The administration’s legal argument, presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” confers citizenship only on children who not only are present in the United States, but also swear allegiance to it.

It is not enough to simply be subject to U.S. law, as is how the clause has traditionally been interpreted, he asserts.

“Yet long after the clause’s adoption, the erroneous notion that birth within the United States confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of United States law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in court papers.

Trump’s executive order is an effort to “restore the original meaning of the clause,” he added.

The case involves individual plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Among the plaintiffs, who use pseudonyms, are two babies allegedly affected by the order.

Trump’s executive order is “flatly contrary to the constitutional text, the precedents of this Court, the dictates of Congress, the long-standing practice of the executive branch, the scientific consensus, and more than a century of our nation’s daily practice,” the challengers’ lawyers wrote in court papers.

They cite an 1898 case, called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to parents who were both from China was a U.S. citizen.

Announced on Trump’s first day in office, Jan. 20, the policy fared poorly in lower courts, with judges across the country ruling it illegal, as they did in the New Hampshire case. As a result, the plan was not implemented.

The Trump administration already won Supreme Court intervention when it successfully argued that individual judges did not have the authority to block the plan nationwide. This decision, however, did not affect the legal merits of the decree.

The court did not rule on a separate case involving a lawsuit filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon.

The Supreme Court has been generally receptive to the Trump administration in cases brought this year, but many legal observers say the birthright showdown could be an exception.

Major tests of Trump’s executive power are now piling up in court. A ruling on the president’s widespread use of tariffs is expected to come at any time, while the justices are also expected to rule on his power to fire members of executive branches of government, including the Federal Reserve, in the coming months.