A federal judge in the state of New Hampshire recently put a halt to President Donald Trump’s executive order to adjust the practice of birthright citizenship in the United States. Even as the case is poised to take flight towards a Supreme Court hearing, this move by the judge defers the immediate changes, allowing a window for legal discourses. However, the order was designed to curtail birthright citizenship for offspring born to individuals without established legal status in the country. The judge’s ruling is preliminary, granting a stay of seven days to consider an appeal, putting a temporary constrain on the order while fostering discussions about its constitutionality.
The push back on President Trump’s order comes less than a month following the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the jurisdiction of lower courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. The specific question of the order’s constitutionality, which was left unanswered, has caught the attention of legal scholars equally; while also leaving space for discussions on birthright citizenship. As the legal debate unfolds, it’s essential to understand the intricate concept of birthright citizenship and what possible future implications could emerge.
Birthright citizenship, a practice deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society, accords the status of an American citizen to anyone born within US borders. This also extends to children of mothers in the country who may not have secured proper legal documentation. This practice dates back to the Civil War era, fortified through the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The historical context of the amendment was to affirm the citizenship status of African Americans, amidst a climate of widespread racial tension and structural inequalities.
The 14th Amendment distinctly states that, ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ The affirmation was further entrenched following Wong Kim Ark’s case. He was a U.S. born individual to Chinese parents and faced difficulty reentering the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, making it abundantly clear that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all born in U.S. soil, regardless of their parental legal status. Over time, it has become an integral facet of our legal framework, with few exceptions, like children born to foreign diplomats within U.S. jurisdiction.
President Trump implemented his executive order on the premise of restructuring the boundaries of birthright citizenship. The order, signed in January, aims to limit the granting of citizenship to children born to individuals who may be present in the U.S. either temporarily or without legal authorization. This order reflects a strong stance on immigration by President Trump, who, alongside his supporters, views birthright citizenship as a ‘magnet for illegal immigration.’
Supporters of Trump, including the president himself, have defended the executive order, arguing its alignment with the 14th Amendment’s clause — ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ They assert this clause implies that U.S. has the right to govern who is granted citizenship, thereby legitimized its denial to babies born to women residing in the U.S. illegally. Despite a handful of federal judges’ assertions otherwise, Trump and his supporters hold firm to their interpretation of the constitution.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, during a hearing earlier this year, called the executive order ‘blatantly unconstitutional.’ However, the assertion seemed rather hasty given the Supreme Court’s recent decision. The high court’s judgment was a significant validation for the Trump administration as it restrained the sweeping authority of individual judges in issuing nationwide injunctions on the basis of individual plaintiffs. The administration praised the judgment as effectively reining in the power of district court judges.
Yet, the Supreme Court refrained from assessing the validity of President Trump’s move to modify birthright citizenship through his executive order. However, it left room for class action lawsuits to challenge the executive order. The Court stated that district judges don’t generally have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. But it also suggested that judges could potentially achieve similar results through another legal device – a class action.
The ruling from New Hampshire District Court Judge Joseph Laplante comes amidst other legal challenges surrounding President Trump’s executive order across various courts in the country. Parallel cases include lawsuits filed by numerous states and cities, along with immigrant rights advocates, and pregnant mothers or those about to become mothers, who could potentially be affected by the order.
Besides New Hampshire, the Maryland District Court is also currently deliberating on how to proceed given the Supreme Court’s view challenging the issuance of nationwide injunctions. Advocates from New Jersey and other states are proposing a nationwide suspension of the order, claiming it aligns with the high court’s recent outlook and that it’s the federal government’s obligation to propose alternative solutions for the court to examine.
A Boston College law professor, Daniel Kanstroom, an expert in immigration law, considers the case to be inevitably bound for the Supreme Court. He emphasizes the high-stakes nature of the case, affecting millions of people, and its potential impact on the nature of the U.S. immigration system.
The outcome of this legal dispute could indeed have far-reaching impacts, calling into question the legacy of post-Civil War America and the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Critical elements at stake include the lives of potentially millions of people and the future of U.S. immigration policy, emphatically highlighting the immense weight and importance that this case carries.