Case marks first major test of second-term immigration policies, with ruling expected by early summer.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a landmark case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which declares that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily are not automatically American citizens.
The justices will review a lower-court ruling that struck down the policy as unconstitutional, preventing it from taking effect nationwide. Oral arguments are scheduled for spring, with a final decision anticipated by early summer.
Signed on January 20, Trump’s first day of his second term, the executive order represents one of the most sweeping reinterpretations of the 14th Amendment in modern history. It forms a central pillar of the administration’s broader immigration crackdown, which also includes targeted enforcement surges in major cities and the first peacetime use of the Alien Enemies Act, a statute dating back to the 1790s.
Federal courts have issued mixed rulings on other elements of the administration’s agenda. While the high court allowed immigration stops to resume in Los Angeles after a lower court ruled they violated civil rights laws, it halted the expedited deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The justices are also weighing Trump’s appeal to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area for immigration enforcement, an action currently blocked by a lower court.
The birthright case — originating in New Hampshire, where a federal judge blocked the order in July on behalf of all affected children — will be the first of Trump’s immigration measures to receive a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court.
For over 125 years, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats or occupying forces. Every lower court so far has found Trump’s reinterpretation unconstitutional, saying the amendment was intended to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Americans and their descendants.
Trump’s legal team, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that the Citizenship Clause was never meant to cover children of foreign nationals without permanent allegiance to the United States. “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was adopted to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children — not to the children of aliens illegally or temporarily in the United States,” Sauer wrote in the government’s petition.
Supporters of the administration, including 24 Republican-led states and 27 GOP lawmakers such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have filed briefs backing the appeal.
A separate challenge filed by Democrat-led states in the Ninth Circuit, which sought a nationwide injunction, remains pending. The Supreme Court took no action on that case Friday.
The outcome of the birthright citizenship case could have sweeping implications for immigration law, family rights, and constitutional interpretation — potentially reshaping the meaning of citizenship in the United States for generations to come.
Original article
Comments