In a series of urgent appeals, the administration of President Donald Trump sought permission from the Supreme Court to proceed with his initiative to abolish birthright citizenship, promoting a legal argument that has been consistently dismissed by various lower courts.
The Trump administration urged the justices to mitigate the effects of this contentious policy, contending that lower courts had overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions to obstruct it.
In January, a federal judge halted the enforcement of his executive order, labeling it as “blatantly unconstitutional.” A Maryland judge subsequently remarked that Trump’s proposal “contradicts our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
The appeals courts have rejected the Trump administration’s plea to overturn lower court rulings that imposed nationwide injunctions on an executive order he enacted on the first day of his second term.
For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment to guarantee citizenship to anyone who is “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This interpretation was affirmed by a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1898, and the current court has not indicated any desire to alter that precedent.
Nonetheless, some conservatives argue that the 14th Amendment’s provision applies only to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, claiming that individuals who enter the country unlawfully remain under the jurisdiction of their home nations.
In response to petitions from more than 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs, courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued injunctions that prevent the policy’s implementation.
In his appeals to the Supreme Court, Trump is not directly challenging the legality of the policy. Rather, the administration is focusing on what they perceive as the overreach of lower court decisions.
This request poses a significant challenge, as a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would enable the administration to implement its directive against individuals not involved in the ongoing lawsuit.
The Justice Department informed the Supreme Court in its emergency appeals that “universal injunctions have proliferated since the current administration took office.” These injunctions prevent the enforcement of a Day 1 Executive Order nationwide, affecting “hundreds of thousands” of unidentified individuals who are “neither before the court nor recognized by it.”
The administration argued to the court that “during the 20th century, the executive branch mistakenly interpreted the citizenship clause as granting birthright citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States, including the children of undocumented immigrants and those temporarily present.” This approach to near-universal birthright citizenship, they contend, has fostered significant incentives for illegal immigration.
On Friday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti submitted an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court supporting President Donald Trump’s initiative to terminate birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants and non-citizens.
The brief endorses Trump’s appeal to overturn multiple nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by federal district courts, which have currently halted the implementation of the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship order. Skrmetti’s submission argues that the courts should interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment according to its “original public meaning.”
He also cautions against judicial overreach, asserting that it disrupts the constitutional balance of powers.
“Courts are granted authority by the Constitution to adjudicate cases and controversies, not to issue broad policy declarations or oversee the executive branch,” Attorney General Skrmetti stated. “Eroding the sovereignty of the American people threatens the foundational principles of our democracy.”
