During a debate in the Supreme Court over the attribute of a federal judge to impede President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, the situation was quite tense. The executive order was intended to be implemented while the case was still being considered in lower courts. The Trump administration carried the view that the order should be granted a degree of execution.
The discussion widely featured the topic of nationwide injunctions. These regulations prevent the government from applying a law or policy all over the country. However, the Court’s stance remained uncertain, with unclear signs of whether the justices were planning on prohibiting such injunctions.
Interestingly, the discussions did not in-depth tackle the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order. Instead, the justices primarily raised questions regarding the proceedings of the case. A few of the justices were even skeptical about the proposal of class actions as an alternative approach to the situation.
In his first term, Trump hinted at the possibility of introducing an executive order to put an end to birthright citizenship, an idea he carried into his campaign for a second term. He finally made his move on January 20th, signing an order stating that children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally or temporarily would not obtain citizenship, effective from February 19th. This move represents his strong stance on immigration policies.
In response, various plaintiffs including advocacy groups for immigrant rights, states, and expecting mothers who held concerns about their future children’s citizenship rights, sought to prevent this policy from being enacted. These groups took to federal courts across the country in their effort to ensure the continuation of birthright citizenship.
It’s worth noting that the 14th amendment of the Constitution declares all individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are US citizens. This amendment came into force primarily to overrule the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which proclaimed that persons of African descent brought to the country for slavery were not legally protected.
One of the landmark cases in the history of the 14th amendment involved Wong Kim Ark, a man of Chinese descent born in San Francisco. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, establishing the right of citizenship for people born on U.S. soil. Their interpretation of the 14th amendment upheld the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship granted by birth in the country, notwithstanding the foreign citizenship of the parents.
The Trump administration persistently met these nationwide injunctions with criticism, viewing them as unconstitutional oversteppings of judicial authority. Their argument was that a federal judge has the right solely to issue judgments that are applicable to the litigants before them, adding that broad injunctions go beyond these limits.
The question of universal injunctions resurfaced when the Council convened on April 17th to notify that discussions would commence on the government’s request on May 15th. The government’s stance was that such injunctions hinder lower court trials of novel legal questions, and create a wide range of practical difficulties.
Speaking in favor of the state’s challenge to the executive order, Solicitor General of New Jersey, Jeremy Feigenbaum, underscored the consequences of allowing citizenship to depend on one’s location of birth. He argued that the preceding rulings of the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship eliminated the necessity for the question to be deliberated again in the lower courts.
Feigenbaum further pointed out that the executive order was “blatantly unlawful” from the standpoint of individual plaintiffs challenging the order. He warned of serious outcomes should the government succeed in implementing the order, asserting that such a ruling would have far-reaching impacts.
The dynamics of class actions were further expounded during the case proceedings. It was noted how federal rules tackle class actions mainly in terms of permanent solutions, making it difficult to acquire preliminary class relief. Therefore, it was argued that universal injunctions should be permitted only in facial challenges involving fundamental constitutional rights.
Should the government triumph, it would be essential for parents to present proof of their legal presence in the United States in order to validate their children’s citizenship. While the court’s liberal justices vocalized their views that Trump’s order violates the Constitution, the opposite side did not voice support for the contrary. The primary uncertainty lies in the timing of the justices’ final decisions.