The Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case surrounding birthright citizenship Friday, but the decision didn’t directly rule on questions surrounding the future of birthright citizenship.
So what exactly did it do and what will it mean for executive orders going forward?
Here’s an explainer on what happened:
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
Which countries have birthright citizenship?
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
What was the case about?
The case was referred to as Trump v. CASA, Inc.
President Donald Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
But states, immigrants and rights groups that sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.
Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.
The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.
The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.
The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.
The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.
What does the ruling mean?
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.
In another dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the decision “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
“It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, arequest for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior,” she wrote. “When the Government says ‘do not allow thelower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,’ what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish.”
Meanwhile, the president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.
So what happens now with birthright citizenship?
A conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.
The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days.
NBC News reported the ruling means the proposal “can potentially move forward nationwide, although individual plaintiffs could still file their own lawsuits in those states and the current challengers can still move to reinstate injunctions that are less broad in scope.”
The American Civil Liberties Union said the ruling “potentially opens the door for partial enforcement of President Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, putting thousands of U.S.-born children at risk of being denied their constitutional rights based on the citizenship status of their parents.”
Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Sotomayor also urged potential plaintiffs to file class action lawsuits.
States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.
The ACLU said the 30-day delay in enforcement allows time “for lower courts to assess the appropriate scope of the injunctions going forward, and for advocates to seek additional protections for affected families.”
What will that mean for Illinois?
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said birthright citizenship “remains the law in Illinois.”
“President Trump’s attempt to strip American babies of citizenship is a flagrantly unconstitutional move that disregards the 14th Amendment and the principle of separation of powers upon which our government was founded,” Raoul said in a statement following the SCOTUS ruling. “As a birthright citizen myself, this is a deeply personal issue for me. As our case continues, I will continue to fight alongside our coalition in challenging President Trump’s executive order and am confident that, under the guidance provided today by the U.S. Supreme Court, our arguments for complete relief will prevail.”
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a vocal critic of Trump, said the ruling “is a dangerous sign that Donald Trump is further consolidating power and putting his own interest above the needs of the American people.”
“As Trump and his allies continue to attack the Rule of Law and undermine the foundations of the United States Constitution, Illinois will stay true to who we are: we are the Land of Lincoln, and we will forcefully defend the freedoms and rights of our people,” Pritzker said in a statement.
Trump Administration 10 hours agoLive updates: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of birthright citizenship unclear
Supreme Court Jun 15What's left for the Supreme Court to decide this term?
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Here's why Chicago doesn't have a fireworks show on July 4 )
Also on site :