In a momentous decision, the Supreme Court recently upheld a request from the Trump administration to enable a partial break on rulings by three federal judges. The ruling had previously obstructed President Donald Trump’s executive order revoking the principle of birthright citizenship – the doctrine that ensured citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, expressed their opposition to the idea of universal or nationwide injunctions, which prevent the government from applying a law or policy anywhere in the country.
The Supreme Court, however, did not peddle an opinion on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order, a critical question buried at the heart of the three lawsuits presented before them. At this point, it looks likely that the Trump administration will remain restricted from enforcing the order, which will not be enacted for 30 days, against the pregnant individual plaintiffs who had disputed it.
In the court’s perspective, eloquently captured by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, possibilities of further litigations in the lower courts were left open regarding narrowing down the injunctions and the potential of class action litigations geared to challenge the order for groups of plaintiffs not included in the original litigation, but who would be impacted by the order.
Justice Barrett acknowledged the arguments stating that the universal injunction ‘provides the Judiciary with a powerful instrument to check the Executive Branch.’ However, she emphasized that federal courts do not regulate general supervision of the Executive Branch; instead, they resolve cases and controversies in line with the power granted to them by Congress.
When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, Barrett added, the solution is not for the court to abuse its power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor held a differing opinion, dissented, and read her opinion from the bench to indicate her deep-seated disagreement with the majority decision.
Sotomayor proposed that the majority had resolved that, barring burdensome class-action litigation, courts cannot entirely enjoin even such clear unlawful policies unless this action is necessary to afford the formal parties full relief. She suggested this resolution turns constitutional guarantee into an idle formality for anyone who is not a party to the lawsuit.
President Trump issued the much-debated executive order cancelling birthright citizenship on January 20, not long after his second term inauguration. As per the order, 30 days after issuance, babies born in the U.S. would no longer automatically be entitled to citizenship if their parents were in the U.S. either illegally or temporarily. This decision subsequently triggered multiple challenges in federal courts throughout the nation, like Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
The challengers of Trump’s order maintained that it contradicts the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. This significant Amendment posits that all individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are U.S. citizens and citizens of the state where they reside.
The 14th Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution back in 1868 and was intended to override one of the Supreme Court’s most notorious decisions, the 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford. After decades, in 1898, a notable case saw the Supreme Court uphold Wong Kim Ark’s claims, born in California to parents of Chinese descent.
The court, by a 6-2 vote, dismissed the government’s argument that Wong was not a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray elaborated that the 14th Amendment, which was enacted to establish the citizenship of Black people, reaffirms the time-honored and integral rule of providing citizenship by birth within the territory under the protection of the country, inclusive of all children born of resident aliens.
In March, the then-Acting Solicitor General made an appeal to the Supreme Court, urging justices to implement a strict limitation on the scope of orders issued by the three judges. She contended that the kind of nationwide injunctions issued in these cases extended further than the constitutional limits on courts’ powers and interfered with the Executive Branch’s function.
The challengers exhorted the justices to let the orders stand. They asserted that being directed to uphold the law as universally recognized for over a century does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a stay, especially when the Trump administration has not challenged the district courts’ conclusion that the executive order is likely unconstitutional.
On April 17, The Supreme Court announced it would listen to arguments in the dispute on May 15. In a 26-page majority opinion, Justice Barrett laid emphasis that courts should only wield power to issue universal injunctions if similar remedies had been provisioned in early English and U.S. history. However, she concluded that there is no record of such a historical precedent.
Indeed, Justice Barrett underlined, ‘universal injunctions were not a part of the federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20th century,’ adding that ‘they remained a sporadic occurrence until the turn of the 21st century.’ Clarification on whether the district courts’ injunctions should be more specific for the states challenging the executive order was left to the lower courts. They were instructed to decide if a narrower injunction would make sense.
In a separate dissent, another Justice argued that the majority’s ‘decision to allow the Executive to sidestep the Constitution concerning anyone who hasn’t sued yet poses a tangible danger to the rule of law.’ Despite such dissenting views, it is clear that the Trump administration’s bold maneuver to tweak the status quo of birthright citizenship sparked a complex legal debate, providing additional proof of President Trump’s unwavering commitment to upholding the natural order and sovereign autonomy of the nation.