Supreme Court to Consider Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy

May 14, 2025 TruthUSA

The administration has called on the justices to restrict the application of nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump’s directive limiting birthright citizenship and whether federal judges overstepped their bounds by blocking his order nationwide.

This marks the first significant hearing of Trump’s second term, potentially shedding light on how the justices perceive the ongoing legal challenges to his policies. To date, federal judges have halted numerous aspects of the president’s second-term agenda, drawing criticism from Republicans who claim that judicial overreach is prevalent.

The insights provided by the justices will influence congressional efforts to control the use of nationwide injunctions and will help clarify the circumstances under which they are warranted.

This hearing is somewhat unique, as it focuses less on the substantive interpretation of laws or constitutional clauses than typical hearings. Instead, the administration has requested the court to pause three nationwide injunctions while more comprehensive discussions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment unfold in the legal system.

According to U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer in a brief submitted to the court on April 7, the second term of Trump has already experienced double the number of nationwide injunctions compared to the first three years of the Biden administration.

“These injunctions hinder essential Executive Branch policies on various issues, including border security, international relations, national security, and military readiness,” he stated.

While it remains uncertain whether Sauer will participate in arguments on May 15, it seems more likely than usual given the prominence of the case. On the opposing side, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and attorney Kelsi Corkran are anticipated to share time advocating for the blocks against the president’s policies.

The Supreme Court may delve into the specific details of the orders and whether the judges needed to enact such extensive injunctions. They could also investigate the extent of judges’ authority in issuing nationwide injunctions.

Republicans have argued that the practice of granting nationwide relief, which has expanded in recent years, exceeds the limitations established by Article III of the Constitution regarding court authority.

This section of the Constitution stipulates that the judicial branch has power over “cases” and “controversies.” Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has claimed that judges are overstepping their authority by granting relief to parties not present in court.

“Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving ‘cases’ and ‘controversies,’ not making policy,” he stated in March when introducing legislation aimed at addressing this practice.

In navigating these procedural complexities, the justices might still evaluate the constitutionality of the president’s order while determining whether the lower courts appropriately issued injunctions at an early stage of litigation.

The matter originates from a provision of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The executive branch has interpreted this amendment as granting citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump contested this interpretation in his January 20 order, asserting that the amendment does not extend that far.

His order instructed the government to withhold citizenship if a individual’s mother was illegally present in the country and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth. The order also clarified that U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary, and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at their birth.

Critics argue that Trump’s interpretation contradicts the explicit language of the amendment and a Supreme Court ruling from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which determined that the 14th Amendment conferred birthright citizenship to a Chinese individual whose parents were legally in the United States.

The administration maintains that this ruling should not be considered applicable to the children of undocumented immigrants. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts have argued that Trump misinterpreted the landmark case.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour indicated in his February 6 opinion that illegal immigrants fall under the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” He, along with other judges, has supported the nationwide scope of their injunctions.

Coughenour remarked in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective,” as plaintiff states would incur costs for children of undocumented immigrants traveling from other states.

“For example, babies born in other states would travel to the Plaintiff States,” he noted. “Once they do, those persons would be eligible for service and support that, without nationwide relief, would need to be funded by the Plaintiff States.”

Source link