This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrl7dd1dp9o

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
(16 days later)
Watch: Should judges be able to block Trump on birthright citizenship?Watch: Should judges be able to block Trump on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect nationwide. The Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump a major win on Friday, ruling that a single judge cannot block a presidential order from taking effect nationwide.
The case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts. The case stemmed from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for some children, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts. With Friday's decision, that order can now begin to go ahead.
The Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda. The six conservative members of the Supreme Court sided with the president, finding that injunctions can only apply to those who have sued.
The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos". Trump appointed three of the justices in his first term.
The liberal justices, meanwhile, said the ruling went too far in lessening courts' powers and strengthening the president's.
Today's ruling was about these courts' uses of injunctions - not Trump's birthright citizenship order itself - meaning it could apply to several other cases involving nationwide injunctions as well.
LIVE: Follow BBC's coverage of the Supreme Court decision
A quick road to the Supreme CourtA quick road to the Supreme Court
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".
The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect. The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits filed by five pregnant women, 22 states, two cities, the Maryland immigrant advocacy group CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.
They are arguing the order goes against the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which established that "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".
However, the Trump administration's says the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the amendment excludes children of people not in the country permanently or lawfully.
Judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issued nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect.
In Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional".In Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional".
Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the president.Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the president.
Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.Roughly 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be enforced.
So the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions. Why the court ruled against nationwide injunctions
The argument against court injunctions The most junior conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, wrote the opinion, saying that lower courts were taking too much power in freezing Trump's orders. Under the constitution, the executive (president), judicial (courts) and legislative (Congress) branches of government are supposed to be equal.
The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Justice Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that if lower courts do not apply "historical equitable limits" in issuing injunctions the Supreme Court will continue to intervene.
The Supreme Court did not do away with injunctions entirely. Judges can block the orders from taking effect for the people who sue against them while their lawsuits proceed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that people challenging an order can band together "statewide, region-wide or even nationwide" in a class action lawsuit.
The issue of nationwide injunctions had long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."
Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious". Nationwide injunctions have also been criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.
Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is likely.
Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.Another critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact.
The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of Trump's agenda. The Trump administration had argued that judges were making high stakes decisions with little time to consider the case and "low information".
The arguments for nationwide injunctions What were the arguments against the ruling?
Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's most senior liberal, wrote a passionate dissent from the ruling, which she read from the bench.
Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional scrutiny. She wrote the ruling took too much power from the courts so that the three branches of government were no longer equal, while arguing that the government had played games in asking the court to make a decision on injunctions instead of on birthright citizenship. She also wrote extensively about birthright citizenship itself.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system. "By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary's authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies," Justice Sotomayor wrote.
"Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had said earlier that the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system.
"I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she said. "Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson had said.
The other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws. On Friday she wrote that the decision "to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law".
Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that in the birthright citizenship case there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship. In general, the liberal justices, along with those arguing against the Trump administration, were concerned about consistency, saying there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship.
What are the arguments around birthright citizenship? What does this mean for birthright citizenship?
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship. The order will go into effect for anyone not a party to the lawsuit in 30 days.
"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 injunctions will only remain in place for "each plaintiff with standing to sue", according to the opinion.
However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US unlawfully. When the state itself is a plaintiff, the lower court could still decide a nationwide injunction is warranted, said University of Michigan legal scholar Margo Schlanger. But that interpretation would likely also be appealed by the federal government, she noted.
Most legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. "It narrowed the path for an injunction, but it didn't cut it off completely," she told the BBC.
At the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?" The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself at some date in the future.
Here are some of the ways the justices could rule Most legal scholars believe it would likely be found unconstitutional.
On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated for. Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that birthright citizenship is the "law of the land" and the order is "patently unconstitutional".
The justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship). White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Friday, though, the administration expects the Supreme Court to agree with it and uphold the order in October.
Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing.
If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases proceed.
If the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court.
The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the question.
They could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.