The US Supreme Court reviews one of Donald Trump’s most controversial policies – restricting citizenship of birth – but the decision on whether this policy is legal. Instead, the judges are asked to decide whether the judges of lower courts have the power to block policy at a national level.
Trump’s January Executive Order denies US automatic citizenship to children born on American land unless one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident. This has triggered litigation of 22 democratically led states and civil rights groups that claim that the order violates the 14th. Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship almost all born in the US.
What the Supreme Court really looks at
Trump’s administration does not require the court to still rule about the constitutionality of the Order. Instead, the court wants the court to limit the scope of orders issued by federal judges in Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland. These judges blocked the order of national level. Administration says that judges should not have the power to stop federal policies for the whole country on the basis of several litigation.
If the Supreme Court agrees, Trump’s order could still be enforced in 28 countries that were not required – creating a split system in which automatic citizenship was awarded to some children born in the US and others are not depending on the state.
Concerns from “Birth of Tourism”
Trump’s administration claims that the citizenship of the birth of law supports “birth of tourism” – where pregnant women travel to the US to have children who automatically become citizens.
Parallels with the Case of Transgender Idaho
The Ministry of Justice quoted the case of 2023 from Idaho, where the Supreme Court allowed the state to promote a ban on sex-confirmation-but only for people who were not part of the original court. Trump’s administration hopes for a similar result here.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. It is not clear whether the judges will stick to the problem of the judicial power or the rules on wider citizenship policy. Oral arguments will provide the first real traces.
The case could have a great impact – not only on citizenship law, but also on how many powerful judges have to block presidential actions at the national level.
(Tagstotranslate) USA Supreme Court
