[ad_1]
Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump aims to end American birthright citizenship. And the recent Supreme Court decision to curb a universal injunction has brought him a step closer to achieving that mission.
Changing the way the government gives citizenship to babies born in the US remains a difficult climb, but the High Court ruling has increased the likelihood that Trump’s new policies to end automatic citizenship will at least temporarily take effect in parts of the country.
Carrie Severino, president of conservative legal advocacy group JCN, said at this stage of the lawsuit it is unclear how Trump’s policies will work logistically, or who it will apply to. The Supreme Court decision issued on June 27th prohibits Trump’s executive order from operating for 30 days.
“Usually, if you give birth in a hospital, they just automatically issue a Social Security number for everyone,” Severino told Fox News Digital. “The questions are not open now and are closed like that.”
Scotts tests rules regarding Trump’s birthright citizenship order, lower court authority
In dealing with the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court addressed much broader questions about federal judges’ injunctions. (Getty Images)
The Supreme Court decision, which stemmed from various democratically-led states and immigration rights groups, filed several lawsuits nationwide, challenged Trump’s executive order signed shortly after the president took office.
The order, outlined under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, dramatically altering the scope of birthright citizenship, which allows babies born to non-citizens of the United States to automatically receive US citizenship in most cases.
The court uniformly rejected Trump’s policies and blocked it by issuing a universal injunction that applies not only to certain pregnant non-citizens represented in the court, but also to the entire country.
Reagan’s appointee Seattle-based federal judge John Corneau condemned government lawyers during a February hearing on the matter.
“It’s becoming increasingly clear to our president that the rule of law is merely a barrier to his policy goals,” the judge said. “He says the rule of law is something that we simply ignore, whether it is for political or personal interest.”
Coughenour later said that if Trump wants to change “an exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship,” the president should work with Congress to amend the constitution, rather than attempting to redefine the amendment through an executive order.
What will happen in the next few weeks?
In the wake of the Supreme Court order, the courts and plaintiffs move quickly and adapt, finding workarounds before the 30-day deadline arrives.
Within hours of the High Court’s decision, the plaintiff who filed a birthright citizenship suit in Maryland asked the judge to change the case to a class action proceeding that covers all babies born after Trump’s executive order comes into effect.
The request was one of the increasingly diverse court requests that tested and potentially lowered the Supreme Court’s injunction decision.
The Supreme Court decision left the ability of judges to use class actions or statewide cases to reduce any orders that block Trump’s policies from being applied to a wide range of people, if they think it is appropriate.
Supreme Court takes on citizenship by nature: Liberals alk over Trump debate to end national injunction
The fundamental merits of President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship policy will end in the Supreme Court. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to implement this order nationwide, unless the court maintains it with regard to parties involved in cases that actually challenge it,” Sevino said.
Michel Lapointe, of the American Council of Immigration, wrote online that there is a “real possibility” that some states might see policies in effect if the judge overseeing the current lawsuit fails to find a way to issue a wide range of injunctions that would hinder birthright citizenship in the coming weeks.
“It increases the risk of babies born in certain parts of the United States. They are completely stripped of their rights as US citizens and perhaps even make them stateless,” writes Lapointe. “The human costs of such actions are merciless.”
Scotus bound, again
Regardless of what happens in the coming weeks and months, the fundamental merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy will end in the Supreme Court.
The judiciary could have avoided touching on the content of Trump’s arguments simply by considering the constitutionality of the universal injunction during this final publication, but the next time the birthright citizenship lawsuit comes before them, they must weigh whether Trump’s policies are constitutional.
100 Day Injunction, Trial, “Teflondon”: Trump’s second term meets the biggest test in court
President Donald Trump shakes his hand with Chief Justice John Roberts in 2020 before a union speech in Washington’s houseroom. (Getty Images)
Severino said he believes that six Republican-appointed judges will depend heavily on “history and tradition” and “what was understood to make sense when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.”
“This is a challenging issue. Sometimes, our immigration system seems very dramatically different from the 14th Amendment, because the kind of immigration we see wasn’t really on their radar, nor was it the type of qualification state we live in,” Sevino said.
Michael Moreland, a professor at Villanova University Law School, told Fox News Digital that there has been a long time academic debate about the language of revision. It states that babies born in the US and “the subject of its jurisdiction” are citizens. The dispute became “how broad or narrow” centered to interpret its clauses, Moland said.
The Trump administration says it wants to curb abuse in the 14th Amendment as part of its immigration crackdown. It says this could include foreigners traveling strictly to the United States to give birth without the intention of legally settling. The amendment also rewards pregnant women who already live illegally by encouraging immigrants to enter the country illegally, giving birth and communicating citizenship to their children, the administration said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
So far, the judges have found Trump’s policies are at odds with more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long given citizenship to children born in the United States, with a few exceptions, including babies born to foreign diplomats and foreign military personnel.
“For a long time, the balance of opinions has been on the side that the 14th amendment says they have the right to birthright citizenship,” Moreland said.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, covering the Department of Justice and legal affairs. Email story tips to Ashley.oliver@fox.com.
[ad_2]Source link
