What should I know about the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s Case of Birth Right

The Supreme Court is expected to decide on Friday one of the most important cases in modern American history – whether a federal judge can prevent the U.S. president’s order from taking effect nationwide.

The case stems from President Donald Trump’s bid for termination of reproductive citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts.

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will make a constitutional decision on the right to birth citizenship. Instead, it will focus on the use of a national ban by federal judges, which hinders key aspects of Trump’s agenda.

The Trump administration argues that judges have surpassed their powers, but other judges say bans are needed to avoid “chaotic.”

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to terminate automatic civil rights for nearly everyone born on U.S. territory, commonly known as “birth right citizenship.”

A series of lawsuits encountered the move immediately, ending in district court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington states, enacting a national injunction that prohibits the order from going into effect.

In Washington, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Trump’s Justice Department replied that the case does not guarantee “special measures” to the interim restraining order and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The ban has been a check on Trump during his second term in a series of execution orders signed by the president.

About 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts, which, despite the Supreme Court eventually stepping in and allowing the policy to be enforced, prevented the Trump administration from banning most trans people from rejecting the military.

Therefore, cases heard in the U.S. Supreme Court are not directly related to birthright citizenship, but about whether lower courts should have the right to block national presidential orders through injunctions.

The issue of national ban has long plagued Supreme Court judges across the ideological range.

Both conservative and liberal judges believe that judges in a district should not unilaterally decide the policies of the entire country.

“It’s wrong to have a magistrate who can stop a national policy on his track and go through a few years of normal processes,” said Elena Kagan, a freelance lawyer, in a 2022 speech.

Similarly, conservative judge Clarence Thomas once wrote that “the universal ban is legally and historically suspicious.”

The ban has also been criticized for enabling so-called forum shopping – the practice of litigation in jurisdictions where possible rulings are more favorable.

Another criticism of the ban is the speed and far-reaching impact of their delivery.

The Trump administration argued in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges have no right to put time-consuming legal barriers before Trump’s agenda.

Without a national injunction, supporters of the measure say the executive’s power could be controlled unrestrictedly and leave a protective burden on the potentially harmful laws of individuals who need to file a separate lawsuit.

The ban is usually the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump from taking immediate legal action in execution of the order. The orders are a clear contrast through Congress’s laws that take longer and have additional reviews on them.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration’s argument advocates “if you can” the judicial system “catch me.”

“Your argument says, ‘We have to keep doing this until everyone who may be hurt by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc.’

“I don’t understand how this aligns with the rule of law,” she said.

Another argument to the ban is that it allows consistency in the application of federal law.

Lawyers against the Trump administration say that in the case of birthright citizenship, there will be “chaos” without a national ban, creating a pieced-up citizenship.

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment’s decision on the U.S. Constitution establishes the principle of citizenship with the right to birth.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are American citizens and the country in which they reside.”

However, the Trump administration’s argument relies on clauses in the 14th Amendment that read “by its jurisdiction.” It believes that the language does not include illegal non-citizen children.

Most legal scholars say President Trump cannot end his reproductive right citizenship through executive orders.

During the May 15 hearing, Judge Kagan pointed out that the government had died on the issue of birthright citizens in every lower court and asked, “Why are you accepting this case with us?”

On the national injunction, the justices can say that, as government lawyers advocate, the injunction can only apply to prosecutors, including class action lawsuits.

The judge can also say that the injunction can only apply to the states that file a case, or that the injunction can only be issued based on constitutional issues such as birthright citizenship.

However, constitutional issues involve most cases, including the Trump administration’s injunction to appeal nationwide.

If the court ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the Trump administration could deny the birthright citizenship of children who immigrated without a document as the court case proceeds.

If the injunction is held, individual court cases challenging the order of the right-of-birth citizen may resort to the Supreme Court.

The High Court could decide on the constitutionality of the right to birth citizenship, but the Justice said they wanted separate, full hearing on the issue.

They can also give signs or tips in written comments to show how they rely on citizenship issues without direct ruling.