Supreme Court Will Hear Trump's Argument to Overturn "Birthright Citizenship"

Birthright citizenship is the theory that if someone is born in America, even if their parents are here illegally, they are American citizens by birthright.

This is the majority rule in the Western Hemisphere, but almost no European countries have this rule.

Birthright citizenship was never passed into law. Rather, it was asserted by the Supreme Court in a 19th century case.

Trump wants the rule changed so that anchor babies born here are not American citizens.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments May 15 on President Donald Trump's order to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants. While the justices declined to lift the nationwide pause on the policy, their decision to fast-track the case signals its legal and constitutional importance.

Key Details:

Trump's executive order, signed on his first day in office, remains blocked by federal courts in three states.

The court will not immediately rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship but will review the legality of nationwide injunctions.

Trump hailed the court's decision to hear the case, saying he was "so happy" and calling the policy's origins misunderstood.

Diving Deeper:

In a rare move, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear oral arguments on May 15 over former President Donald Trump's executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and non-citizen residents. The announcement came via a brief, unsigned order that offered no reasoning, as is typical in emergency requests, but underscored the case's significance by granting expedited review.

At issue is whether lower courts overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions on the Trump administration's birthright citizenship policy, which the former president enacted on his first day back in office. The policy would eliminate automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally--a direct challenge to a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

That interpretation has held since 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Legal scholars have debated this for years, with some conservatives, including Trump ally John Eastman, arguing that the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply so broadly. Others, like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, have called Trump's order "blatantly unconstitutional," pointing to post-Civil War intent and more than a century of legal precedent.

posted by Ace at 01:18 PM

| Access Comments