WASHINGTON — In response to a blockbuster ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to rule on the legality of President Donald Trump's controversial plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for virtually everyone born in the United States.
A final decision in the New Hampshire case, expected by the end of June, will likely ultimately determine whether Trump's ambitious proposal can move forward.
The case represents a major showdown between a president whose aggressive use of executive power has been a defining characteristic of his second term and a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has so far largely avoided direct confrontations with the White House.
Birthright citizenship has long been considered mandatory under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
This language was included in a constitutional amendment passed after the Civil War to ensure that former black slaves and their children were recognized as citizens.
Legal scholars of all ideological stripes generally believe that the phrase is self-explanatory, except for people born to foreign diplomats, invading hostile forces, and members of certain Indian tribes.
But Trump, as part of his crackdown on immigration, has attempted to unravel this historical understanding by adopting a hitherto fringe theory promoted by anti-immigration activists.
According to the administration, birthright citizenship would be limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident. In this case, this right would not apply to infants born to temporary visitors who entered the country legally or to people who entered the country illegally.
The administration's legal argument, presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is that the “subject to its jurisdiction” language confers citizenship only on children who are not only present in the United States, but who are loyal to it.
He argues that it is not enough to simply obey US law, which is how the clause has traditionally been interpreted.
“However, long after the passage of this section, the erroneous belief that birth on U.S. soil conferred citizenship on anyone subject to the regulation of U.S. law became widespread, with devastating consequences,” Sauer wrote in court papers.
Trump's order is an attempt to “restore the original meaning of this clause,” he added.
The case involves individual plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The plaintiffs, using pseudonyms, include two infants who will be subject to the restraining order.
Trump's order “directly contradicts the text of the Constitution, the precedents of this court, the dictates of Congress, long-standing executive branch practice, scientific consensus, and more than a century of day-to-day practice in our country,” lawyers for the challengers wrote in court papers.
They point to an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to parents both from China was a U.S. citizen.
Announced on Trump's first day in office, Jan. 20, the policy backfired in lower courts, with judges across the country ruling it illegal, as was the case in New Hampshire. As a result, the plan was not implemented.
The Trump administration has already gotten the Supreme Court to intervene when successfully argued that individual judges did not have the power to block the plan nationwide. However, this decision did not affect the legal basis of the executive order.
The court did not rule on a separate case involving a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon.
Supreme Court was generally receptive Trump administration in cases filed this year, but many legal observers say the birthright citizenship fight may be an exception.
Serious challenges to Trump's executive authority are now building in court. Decree on the president's widespread use of tariffs due at any time, while judges must also assess his power to dismiss members of the executive government, including Federal Reservein the coming months.
