Supreme Court Reviews Challenge: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 in a case challenging former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for most individuals born in the United States.
Although the Court declined the Trump administration’s request to immediately implement the policy, its decision to take up the case represents a pivotal and historic development. The administration presented its appeal as a “modest” attempt to limit the reach of lower court rulings. However, a ruling in Trump’s favor could effectively authorize a policy that lower courts have described as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
At the heart of the case is the question of whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that halt government actions across the entire country, not just for the parties involved in a specific lawsuit. Legal experts have underscored the significance of using this case to settle a broader procedural issue.
“This administration is trying to leverage a procedural dispute to implement a policy widely viewed as unconstitutional,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and law professor at Georgetown University. “It would be extraordinary if the justices decided such a politically charged issue through this case.”
Ending birthright citizenship was a central promise of Trump’s reelection campaign. While the 14th Amendment has historically been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office, aiming to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants. This order sparked a wave of legal challenges and multiple nationwide injunctions. Instead of contesting the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, Trump’s legal team focused the appeal on the scope of the injunctions.
Still on Supreme Court Reviews Challenge
Legal precedent on this matter traces back to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that those born on U.S. soil are citizens. The current Court has shown little interest in revisiting that ruling, but some conservative voices argue that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes children of undocumented immigrants. The Department of Justice has criticized lower courts for issuing sweeping injunctions that affect individuals not directly involved in lawsuits. Conversely, opponents argue that a national issue like birthright citizenship requires a unified legal standard, not a fragmented, state-by-state approach.
Emergency court rulings—though not final decisions—can have substantial short-term effects. For example, in 2021, the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks, effectively allowing the law to remain in place until Roe v. Wade was overturned months later.
Following Trump’s executive order, several lower courts acted swiftly. A federal judge in Washington—appointed by President Ronald Reagan—barred the administration from enforcing the policy and later issued a preliminary injunction. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in a case brought by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
Separately, a federal judge in Maryland—appointed by President Joe Biden—issued a nationwide injunction, which the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld. Another injunction was issued in Massachusetts in a case led by New Jersey and joined by 17 other states.
Trump appealed all three cases to the Supreme Court on March 13. The Court’s eventual ruling could significantly alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and redefine how citizenship is determined in the United States.
Would you like to Earn Money Online with just your mobile device?
If yes then click on the link below:
https://earnbean.ng/
