By Joke Kujenya
PRESIDENT DONALD Trump has taken his legal battle against birthright citizenship to the United States Supreme Court after federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state blocked his executive order seeking to end the practice.
Trump’s order, signed on his first day in office, aims to deny birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants.
The policy challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the country.
The Justice Department filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Thursday, urging it to restrict the nationwide scope of the lower court injunctions to only the individual plaintiffs involved in the three cases.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris described the request as “modest,” stopping short of seeking a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order at this stage.
Trump’s immigration policies have consistently faced legal challenges, with courts across the nation blocking or limiting key initiatives.
In this case, Judge John Coughenour of Washington state labelled the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional,” referencing his four-decade tenure on the bench and stating that the legal question was “as clear as this one is.”
Coughenour’s ruling underscores the constitutional principle that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship rights regardless of parental immigration status.
The amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Trump’s legal argument hinges on the notion that undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore their children should not receive automatic citizenship.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three justices appointed by Trump, is expected to play a decisive role in determining the extent of executive power in shaping immigration law.
The Court’s ruling could set a precedent on the president’s authority to unilaterally redefine constitutional interpretations of citizenship.
Meanwhile, Harris criticised the increasing number of nationwide injunctions issued against Trump’s executive orders, calling them an “epidemic” that hinders the government’s ability to function effectively.
“Universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country,” she argued in her brief to the Supreme Court.
The legal challenge to Trump’s order is part of a broader effort to curb illegal immigration, reduce government expenditure, and reshape the federal workforce.
In a separate legal setback, a district judge in California on Thursday ordered six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary workers who had been dismissed.
Meanwhile, with Trump’s order originally set to take effect on February 19, the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching consequences on the legal landscape surrounding immigration and executive authority.
