The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship. The order aims to limit birthright citizenship to children born to US citizen parents or those with lawful permanent residence.
Background
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Trump’s order would require federal officials to refuse certain citizenship documents. Critics say this would undermine constitutional protections.
Protests Outside the Court
Several dozen protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court, holding signs and wearing t-shirts indicating their support for preserving birthright citizenship. “American born children are American children,” one sign read. “Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right,” another sign stated.
Arguments and Questions
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, arguing for the states and cities challenging Trump’s order, urged the court to avoid drawing a “bright line” around nationwide injunctions. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether trial judges have an “occupational disease” of thinking they’re always right.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the administration’s argument, saying it seemed to turn the justice system into a “catch me if you can” regime. Sauer countered that this would negatively impact the administration, forcing them to battle in every jurisdiction.
Key Justices
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are emerging as key votes in the case. Barrett repeatedly pressed Sauer about why the government is avoiding the merits of the case, while Kavanaugh questioned the practicality of implementing Trump’s order if nationwide injunctions are rolled back.
Liberal Justices’ Concerns
The court’s liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concerns about the potential impact of limiting nationwide injunctions. “If you win this challenge and say there is no nationwide injunction,” Kagan said, “then I can’t see how an individual who is not being treated equitably would have any ability to bring the substantive question to us.”
Quotes from the Hearing
- Justice Jackson: “The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime.”
- Justice Barrett: “Why does the government care?” about opposing a nationwide injunction but accepting a class-action judgment.
- Justice Kagan: “Let’s assume you’re dead wrong” on the underlying legality of Trump’s executive order. “What happens to people in the meantime?”
- Justice Sotomayor: “If even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that right, and thus invites hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, what are we buying into?”
- Chief Justice Roberts: “How does your theory address” the situation of redistricting cases?
Potential Impact
The court’s decision may have significant implications for birthright citizenship and the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. If the court sides with Trump, it could lead to a significant shift in immigration policy and potentially create a “disuniformity” in the application of laws across different states.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be closely watched, and the justices’ questions and arguments suggest a complex and nuanced debate. The outcome may depend on the swing votes of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett.