Just a few weeks after a Supreme Court ruling put a restriction on the use of national, or universal, injunctions related to President Donald Trump’s executive decree involving birthright citizenship, a fresh national injunction is standing as a roadblock to its execution. The very complexity of the multiple ongoing lawsuits associated with the order has left many regular consumers of legal news puzzled, making the task of understanding the judgement in favor of the Trump administration quite daunting when initially released.
The whirlwind of events began on January 20, with President Trump introducing the birthright citizenship order right after swearing his second term Oath of Office. The order, named ‘Preserving the Core Principles of American Citizenship,’ rests on a debated interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requests a shift in procedure for government agencies and departments concerning ‘papers acknowledging United States citizenship.’ The goal is to safeguard the interest of those born in the US to parents who were either unlawfully or temporarily in the country, from exploiting citizenship benefits.
Expected to take effect for newborns 30 days post the issuance of the order and henceforth, it instantly faced opposition from diverse quarters. It was subsequently challenged in several federal courts by immigrant rights defenders, pregnant women, states, and cities.
By the course of a month, three district judges from the court passed universal injunctions inhibiting the order from getting applied anywhere across the country. A fourth restricted injunction was introduced that prevented the Trump administration from applying it against certain immigrant rights group members.
In mid-March, the Trump administration carried the issue to the Supreme Court, not to defend the order directly but to question the legitimacy of universal injunctions. They put forth the argument, stating the inferior courts might not have the authority to suspend policies on a national level.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed the opinion that universal injunctions, in many situations, may surpass the power of lower courts and they are often not warranted to grant a thorough relief to the policy challengers. This jury verdict refrained from dismissing the option of nationwide class-based injunctions, and those challenging agency actions as illegal.
The aforementioned determination by the court was deemed highly substantial for the judicial period, and seen as a significant triumph for the Trump administration due to their ability to accomplish policy objectives via executive actions.
However, the victory wasn’t an unambiguous one when it came to birthright citizenship. It wasn’t seemingly a full score for federal officials given it offered a blueprint for potential class-based injunctions with nationwide applicability.
Curiously enough, a new class-action suit against the birthright citizenship order was tabled on the very day the Supreme Court divulged its verdict, leading to the issuing of an all new nationwide injunction of class-based nature.
Although the superior court’s ruling had paved the path for the birthright citizenship order to become operational in states not contesting it, the route remains blocked as long as the new order prevails. There exists the prospect of further injunctions in the pipeline, as the lower courts continue revising their original injunctions.
Therefore, it seems entirely plausible for the Supreme Court to reevaluate the application of such injunctions concerning birthright citizenship cases in the near future.
In the longer timeline, the justices are anticipated to offer their verdict on whether the order might contravene the 14th Amendment. The exact timeline of this eventuality is yet to be revealed.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that the legal contest around Trump’s birthright citizenship order is a long way from reaching its climax. The drama continues in the legal and political arena, touching upon the core values and principles of American citizenship.