US Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

WASHINGTON — On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments on the question of the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order, which aimed to restrict birthright citizenship. This is a key constitutional principle that grants citizenship automatically to any person born on U.S. soil.

The case of Trump v. Barbara is a lawsuit centered on the Trump administration's attempt to narrow the scope of the 14th Amendment. The executive order issued just a couple of hours after Trump's second inauguration was intended to deprive automatic citizenship of the children born in the U.S. to parents who were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

The contentious command was among a more significant immigration plan that was supposed to stop what the administration called the "incentives" of illegal immigration. It was not long before the order faced various legal challenges from different parts of the United States. Consequently, a number of federal judges have responded by issuing rulings that suspend it on the grounds that it is an infringement of the Constitution, federal immigration laws, and firmly established Supreme Court precedents.

In its late June decision, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had overstepped their bounds in issuing nationwide injunctions while leaving the crucial question of the constitutional validity of the policy unanswered. The day after will determine if the order conflicts with the 14th Amendment or any federal laws.

Constitutional Clash Originating From New Hampshire Case

The dispute has its roots in a New Hampshire lawsuit brought by parents and children who are citizens and whose rights to citizenship were the ones that the executive order aimed to restrict. A federal judge stopped the policy in July, saying that it was illegal and that it went against the laws that guarantee birthright citizenship. The ACLU, a rights protection organization for families, which is the advocate of the families, emphasized the firmly established legal basis of the principle.

"No president is empowered to change the basic promise of the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship," ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang said. "Birthright citizenship has always been the law and our heritage for over 150 years. Every single court has decided that Trump's order conflicts with the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and federal law. We are anticipating the Supreme Court's final verdict this term," she added.

If the Court decides in favor of Trump, the children of illegal parents or temporary visitors born in the U.S. will not be US citizens by automatic right. This will have an impact on tens of thousands of infants annually and limit their access to programs such as Medicaid, food assistance, and other federal benefits.

The‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ U.S. is among about 30 countries that offer birthright citizenship based on the origin principle. Others in the list are countries like Canada and Mexico. A shift in this understanding of the concept may have the ripple effects that touch the areas of immigration policy, social welfare, and constitutional law.

It is a very important case for the Supreme Court to decide. They will listen to oral arguments in this case next spring and deliver their decision probably by the beginning of summer. The decision will be a yes or no to the question whether the most basic notion of citizenship in America can be changed by a single executive ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌order.

During the lawsuit, among others, advocates and constitutional scholars argue that the litigations concern citizenship, equality, and the limits of presidential authority in immigration ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌matters.