The Supreme Court announced on Thursday it will hear arguments next month on whether judges overstepped by blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship policy with sweeping nationwide injunctions.
The high court will hear arguments on May 15 on whether judges overstepped their authority in issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions, but opted to delay addressing the legal merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship plan, which remains blocked while litigation continues.
Then-acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, with the backing of 21 other states, asserted in court papers that judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions and that the suing states have no legal standing.
Harris argued that the far-reaching injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
She urged the justices to “declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”
Trump’s January executive order seeks to grant citizenship only to children born with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
The order was immediately challenged in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, with courts consistently blocking its implementation on the basis that it violated the 14th Amendment, per NBC News.
Central to the dispute is the 14th Amendment’s text: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The traditional interpretation has granted citizenship to virtually everyone born on United States soil except children of diplomats.
However, the Trump administration contends the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” creates a narrower scope for birthright citizenship than previously recognized.
They argue that this clause excludes children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, asserting that such individuals are not fully subject to United States jurisdiction.
The 21 states supporting Trump’s policy include Texas, Florida, and Georgia, which argue that unlimited birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and places financial burdens on their resources.
The administration argues that nationwide injunctions allow a single district judge to effectively veto presidential actions, pointing out that such injunctions have been used to derail the agendas of presidential administrations regardless of party.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor on the injunction question, the administration could implement the policy in states that haven’t secured injunctions while litigation on the underlying constitutional question continues, according to NBC News.
The high court’s decision on nationwide injunctions could have implications far beyond immigration policy, potentially affecting how future presidential administrations implement controversial executive actions across numerous policy areas.
