Throughout the latter tenure of President Trump, an ensuing agreement has emerged amongst federal judges nationwide, and those possessing a basic comprehension of our nation’s founding document: his unprecedented attempt to terminate birthright citizenship for offspring of undocumented immigrants stands in flagrant violation of the United States Constitution. Judges from both sides of the political aisle have unanimously ruled that this conclusion not only holds universally, but is embodied in the spirit of the Constitution itself. However, in a hasty court decision, driven by an administration intent on stifling the lives of non-citizens by any measures possible, the Supreme Court missed the opportunity to acknowledge this universally recognized truth last Friday.
Stretching back over ten years, the Supreme Court has been conflicted over nationwide, all-encompassing injunctions, dating back to the Obama administration. During this period, a coalition of attorneys general from GOP-led states, including Texas, began utilizing the judicial platform to contest presidential decisions. Ranging from implementing measures to ensure transgender-friendly bathrooms in schools to safeguarding the undocumented guardians of U.S. citizens, these policies came under fire. A stream of sweeping court verdicts from federal judges in Texas further propelled this effort, casting vast injunctions not merely on the aggrieved states, but universally. These nationwide orders seriously hampered the ability of the administration under Joe Biden to govern effectively, many stemming from judges appointed under Trump’s tenure.
It wasn’t until many presidencies later when the GOP-dominant Supreme Court made the final call on this matter: the universal injunctions ‘typically extend beyond the equitable jurisdiction afforded to federal courts by Congress.’ Yet, their endeavor to bring order to this governance-via-litigation strategy has regrettably exacerbated the situation. As one of the final items on their agenda prior to the summer recess, the justices left room for confusion and uncertainty in all 50 states by declining to halt Donald Trump’s unashamedly illegal executive order that denies birthright citizenship to offspring of undocuemented non-citizens.
The 6-3 ruling, which appears deceptively innocuous in its legal jargon and procedural codifications, is extraordinarily disconcerting for its lack of attention to the unconstitutional nature of Trump’s order—an unprecedented negation of 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. This amendment has ensured for over a century and a half that everyone born on American soil, regardless of their immigration status, is a U.S. citizen. Six courts from various jurisdictions promptly blocked Trump’s plan soon after its announcement on the first day of his presidency.
Justice Sotomayor criticizes the Supreme Court’s evasion of addressing the unconstitutionality of Trump’s order directly. She points out that the court’s strategy would result in a two-tier system wherein a child’s citizenship or eligibility for government-funded perks could alter depending on whether they reside in a respondent state at any given time. Considering Trump administration’s scant respect for due process and perceived authority to deport undocumented individuals immediately, this approach highlights the possibility of newborn citizens facing statelessness or worse as their parents get removed. This ignominious possibility just accentuates the necessity of universal injunctions in certain circumstances.
At the heart of these vehement disagreements lies Trump and his administration. What has emerged from this second era of Trump’s presidency is a rampant attempt to undermine the judiciary. The Trump administration and its allies have resorted to ignoring court orders, advocating for the impeachment of judges, and instigating legal action against entire judicial boards for establishing rules that the government opposes.
The implications of these actions became evident with Chief Judge James Boasberg’s efforts. When he found that the government had disobeyed his directives by refusing to return unlawfully detained immigrants to El Salvador, the Justice Department swiftly retaliated by attempting to curtail Boasberg’s inquiry. Subsequently, this motion won the approval of two federal appeals court judges appointed by Trump. Consequently, the relentless efforts of Boasberg and other judges who pursue impartiality while assessing Trump’s extreme violations, find themselves hampered by non-compliance.
The course of the second Trump administration is marked by an evident disregard for long-standing legal commitments and established norms. The administration adopts a reckless approach, even going as far as to misrepresent the actions of the Supreme Court. The conservative leanings of Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court may give the impression of injecting stability and order into the legal system, but they instead contribute to further tumult. Trump thrives on such chaos.
By abstaining from providing a definitive interpretation of our foremost amendment, the high court aids to sustain the cloud of uncertainty hovering over our future. Justice Sotomayor’s poignant observation highlights this unsettling tendency: in this new-age legal regime, no established right remains secure. The potential ramifications are left utterly open-ended, introducing an alarming degree of uncertainty into the American legal landscape.