‘Legally and historically dubious’: Supreme Court justices clash over Trump’s birthright citizenship ban

The President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. The main question before the justices was not whether the ban on birthright citizenship itself was constitutional, but rather whether the nationwide court orders blocking it were legal and how far they should extend.

The Trump istration argued that these broad injunctions went beyond the proper limits of judicial power and asked the court to restrict their effect. As reported by the Washington Post, the istration claimed that the nationwide injunctions, issued by three lower-court judges, interfered with the executive branch’s ability to govern effectively.

In a legal filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer described these sweeping orders as having “reached epidemic proportions,” pointing out that around 39 nationwide injunctions had been issued against various Trump istration policies since the start of his second term. According to CBS News, the istration’s main request was to limit the injunctions so they only applied to the specific plaintiffs in the lawsuits. This means 22 states, two organizations, and several individuals, which would allow the policy to take effect in states not directly involved in the legal challenge.

Supreme Court deciding on birthright citizenship ban

This request was based on the istration’s key argument that nationwide injunctions give too much power to individual judges, letting them block presidential policies across the entire country. The Trump istration argued that this byes the normal legal process and upsets the balance of power between branches of government.

The number of injunctions issued against the Trump istration had reached over 60 during his first term and increased quickly in his second term. The legal foundation for birthright citizenship, however, is the background to this fight over injunctions. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

The Trump istration argued that undocumented immigrants, because they lack permanent legal status, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., so their children should not automatically receive citizenship. This interpretation goes against the long-accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment, which is ed by legal experts and past Supreme Court rulings.

A major precedent comes from the 1898 case Wong Kim Ark v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen, even though his parents could not become citizens themselves. The court clearly stated that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign parents would mean stripping citizenship from “thousands of persons” of European descent as well.

The Trump istration’s interpretation would require overturning this long-standing precedent and rejecting the historical view of birthright citizenship. The justices themselves have had different opinions on nationwide injunctions in past cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas has called them “legally and historically dubious,” while Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., has criticized them for forcing courts to make quick decisions without full information. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested banning nationwide injunctions might be the right legal approach. However, Justice Elena Kagan has noted that concerns about these injunctions go beyond political parties, a view that seems reflected in the range of opinions the justices have expressed in this case.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court democratic and conservative .

The Supreme Court’s decision will have major consequences. If the court rules in favor of the Trump istration, the birthright citizenship ban could take effect in states not involved in the lawsuits, potentially creating a system where citizenship rules vary across the country. On the other hand, if the court upholds the nationwide injunctions, the ban will remain blocked while legal challenges continue.