Trump Seeks High Court Review of Executive Order Blocking Birthright Citizenship
The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate its executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States, following multiple lower court injunctions blocking its enforcement
On Thursday, March 13, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed an emergency request with the high court, seeking to lift nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state. These injunctions have prevented the implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order, which denies U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The administration's appeal challenges the scope of the lower courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, arguing that such broad orders exceed judicial power and impede executive functions. Harris described the request as "modest," urging the Supreme Court to limit the injunctions to the specific parties involved in the respective cases.
The executive order, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, represents a significant shift from the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has traditionally granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The administration contends that the amendment's guarantee of citizenship does not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
Legal experts assert that altering the established understanding of the 14th Amendment would require a constitutional amendment, a process far more complex than an executive order. The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision on this emergency appeal could have profound implications for the interpretation of birthright citizenship in the United States.
The Court is expected to review the administration's request and determine whether to lift the injunctions, thereby allowing the executive order to take effect while legal challenges proceed. This case presents a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over immigration policy and the parameters of constitutional citizenship.
Comments