This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/15/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Supreme court heard birthright citizenship dispute that could expand Trump’s power Supreme court wary of Trump’s bid to restrict US birthright citizenship
(30 minutes later)
President’s lawyers have asked for ruling on whether lower court judges should be able to block his orders nationwide Justices heard trio of cases stemming from president’s January order in dispute that could expand his power
The US supreme court heard arguments on Thursday in a dispute that could significantly expand presidential power despite ostensibly focusing on Donald Trump’s contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship. US supreme court justices on Thursday took issue with Donald Trump’s attempt to sidestep the constitution to limit birthright citizenship, a case that, while technically about immigration, could reshape presidential power and the role of federal courts.
The trio of cases before the court stem from the president’s January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.The trio of cases before the court stem from the president’s January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said early in the arguments that Trump’s executive order violates four supreme court precedents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said early in the arguments that Trump’s executive order violates four supreme court precedents, while D John Sauer, US solicitor general arguing on behalf of the administration, said that Trump’s order was “protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship”.
But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional, and very little of the arguments focused on the immigration issues at the heart of Trump’s order. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional, and very little of the arguments focused on the immigration issues at the heart of Trump’s order. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.
Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including Deborah Boardman, a US district judge who ruled that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.” Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including Deborah Boardman, a US district judge who ruled that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation”.
D John Sauer, the US solicitor general arguing on behalf of the administration, said that Trump’s order was “protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship”.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the government has lost every case about Trump’s birthright citizenship order, and questioned why the administration decided to appeal to the supreme court.Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the government has lost every case about Trump’s birthright citizenship order, and questioned why the administration decided to appeal to the supreme court.
But the justice department argues the “nationwide injunctions” unfairly tie the president’s hands. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump administration,” the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued.But the justice department argues the “nationwide injunctions” unfairly tie the president’s hands. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump administration,” the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued.
If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.
The supreme court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the issue a “question of great significance” requiring the court’s attention.The supreme court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the issue a “question of great significance” requiring the court’s attention.
On Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to question nationwide injunctions, saying that the country “survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions”.On Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to question nationwide injunctions, saying that the country “survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions”.
Critics warn that limiting judges’ power to block policies nationwide would force people to file thousands of individual lawsuits to protect their rights.Critics warn that limiting judges’ power to block policies nationwide would force people to file thousands of individual lawsuits to protect their rights.
“The ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” Kagan said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned how the government can require every person affected to hire a lawyer, asking if that scheme is “remotely consistent with the rule of law”. “The ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” Kagan said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned how the government can require every person affected to hire a lawyer, asking whether that scheme was “remotely consistent with the rule of law”.
Kagan also asked Sauer to assume that the executive order is unconstitutional and to explain how courts will get to the end result.Kagan also asked Sauer to assume that the executive order is unconstitutional and to explain how courts will get to the end result.
“Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit? Are there alternatives? How long does it take? How do we get to the result that there is a single rule of citizenship that is the rule that we’ve historically applied rather than the rule the EO would have us do?”“Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit? Are there alternatives? How long does it take? How do we get to the result that there is a single rule of citizenship that is the rule that we’ve historically applied rather than the rule the EO would have us do?”
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the New Jersey solicitor general, argued the government’s approach “would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you’re born, or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines” – creating what he called “serious and unanswerable questions” for both federal and state authorities.Jeremy Feigenbaum, the New Jersey solicitor general, argued the government’s approach “would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you’re born, or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines” – creating what he called “serious and unanswerable questions” for both federal and state authorities.
“Since the 14th amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides,” he said.
Sign up to This Week in TrumplandSign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administrationA deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
“Since the 14th amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides,” he said.
When questioned about the historical basis for nationwide injunctions, Feigenbaum acknowledged they should be “reserved for narrow circumstances” but insisted this case clearly meets that threshold.When questioned about the historical basis for nationwide injunctions, Feigenbaum acknowledged they should be “reserved for narrow circumstances” but insisted this case clearly meets that threshold.
Justices pressed Sauer on whether people can bring class action lawsuits instead of seeking nationwide injunctions. Sauer responded that emergency class status could be granted but courts typically grant relief to the people who have sued and not to other people as well. Justices pressed Sauer on whether people can bring class-action lawsuits instead of seeking nationwide injunctions. Sauer responded that emergency class status could be granted but courts typically grant relief to the people who have sued and not to other people as well.
By the end of March, Trump had faced at least 17 nationwide injunctions since returning to office in January, according to the Congressional Research Service. His first term saw 86 such rulings – far more than other presidents including Joe Biden, who saw 28; Barack Obama who saw 12; and George W Bush who saw six. Trump has also faced at least 328 lawsuits nationwide as of 1 May, with judges blocking his actions more than 200 times, according to a Bloomberg analysis. By the end of March, Trump had faced at least 17 nationwide injunctions since returning to office in January, according to the Congressional Research Service. His first term saw 86 such rulings – far more than other presidents including Joe Biden, who saw 28; Barack Obama, who saw 12; and George W Bush, who saw six. Trump has also faced at least 328 lawsuits nationwide as of 1 May, with judges blocking his actions more than 200 times, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
The administration has said that universal injunctions “have reached epidemic proportions since the start of” Trump’s second term, and claims they have prevented the executive branch “from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions”. The administration has said that universal injunctions have prevented the executive branch “from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions”.
Hundreds of protesters congregated outside the supreme court during the arguments Thursday for a rally spearheaded by immigration group Casa. Demonstrators, chanting slogans in English and Spanish, held up placards saying: “Birthright Citizenship isn’t a conditional privilege.” Hundreds of protesters congregated outside the supreme court during the arguments Thursday for a rally spearheaded by immigration group Casa. Demonstrators, chanting slogans in English and Spanish, held up placards saying: “Birthright citizenship isn’t a conditional privilege.”
Andrea Flores, the vice-president of immigration policy at Forward US, told the Guardian that she fears a “a patchwork system” whereby birthright citizenship would be accepted in some states but not in others.Andrea Flores, the vice-president of immigration policy at Forward US, told the Guardian that she fears a “a patchwork system” whereby birthright citizenship would be accepted in some states but not in others.
“That would create a different scheme, where, in one state, say, in South Carolina, if you’re the child of an immigrant, you’re not a citizen, but in North Carolina and you’re the child of an immigrant, you are a citizen. So it would create a patchwork citizenship process,” she said.“That would create a different scheme, where, in one state, say, in South Carolina, if you’re the child of an immigrant, you’re not a citizen, but in North Carolina and you’re the child of an immigrant, you are a citizen. So it would create a patchwork citizenship process,” she said.
The text of the 14th amendment is “clear and settled law”, she added, calling the legal underpinning of Trump’s executive order “a fringe theory”.The text of the 14th amendment is “clear and settled law”, she added, calling the legal underpinning of Trump’s executive order “a fringe theory”.
Three separate lawsuits have been consolidated into one challenge before the court on Thursday, which came via an emergency appeal in the court’s so-called “shadow docket”. The court’s ruling is expected by early July.Three separate lawsuits have been consolidated into one challenge before the court on Thursday, which came via an emergency appeal in the court’s so-called “shadow docket”. The court’s ruling is expected by early July.