By T N Ashok
NEW YORK: The US Supreme Court has curbed national injunctions on President Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship. The full bench of the apex court ruled 6-3 in a majority ruling that lower courts did not have the right to grant stays or injunctions on President Trump’s executive orders.
Thereby, the Supreme Court on Friday handed a major win to the Trump administration by allowing it to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship.
In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued. That means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not.
The ruling immediately sparked a response from plaintiffs who have sued to block the executive order, with their lawyers vowing to continue the legal fight. It has long been widely accepted, including by legal scholars on left and right, that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States..
In remarks to reporters at the White House, the president called the ruling “an amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about,” adding that the court “delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law, in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.”
Asked what he would say to people who fear the decision will concentrate power in presidency, Trump said, “This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it’s all about, and this is really the opposite of that.”
The court was divided on ideological lines on the issue, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary.” Lower courts, she added “shall move expeditiously” to figure out how broad the injunctions can be.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, didn’t rule on whether President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act. Instead, it focused on whether federal courts have the power to issue nationwide blocks.
“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the conservative majority said. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
The court also said that the administration can continue working administratively on how the policy would be implemented. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench in the courtroom, saying the ruling was a “travesty for the rule of the law” and an “open invitation to bypass the constitution.” Justice Elena Kaganalao dissented in his judgement with the majority.
This 6-3 decision sided with the Trump administration’s request to limit nationwide injunctions issued by federal courts, a partial win for the President. The decision itself, however, did not rule on the constitutionality of the President’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Federal courts “will be hamstrung” when it comes to nationwide injunctions but she urged potential plaintiffs to immediately file class action lawsuits, a legal avenue the court left open. In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
While the President’s EO on ending birthright citizenship is not a universal fiat on all children born in the USA but limited to those born to known people with criminal records, illegal immigrants. And those who went to court against these rulings got orders from lower courts granting injunctions. So the SCOTUS rulings limit the scope to courts where groups had gone in appeal.
The Supreme Court has left wide open the constitutional validity of automatic birthright citizenship on which class action law suits can be filed. The 14th amendment to the constitution grants the right of automatic birth right citizenship to “anyone born in the USA”. There are no orders to this amendment.
The order sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Trump stated during his campaign that the executive order was intended to deter future unauthorized immigration. Make ancestry a criteria for citizenship: The order aimed to make ancestry a factor in determining citizenship, requiring children born on U.S. soil to have at least one parent with U.S. citizenship or a green card.
The order instructed federal agencies to stop issuing documents like Social Security cards and passports to children affected by the order. The order could also prevent the federal government from recognizing state-issued birth certificates for these children. Creation of a “caste-based system”: Critics argued that the order would create a permanent underclass of people born in the U.S. who would be denied fundamental rights, such as healthcare, voting, and employment.
At the moment, Trump is not seeking to question the validity of the 14th amendment granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the USA and only in its application to certain categories.
So, naturalized American citizens ( Indians with green cards or citizenship) having a child with a temporary resident, say H1b or L1 status, are not the subject matter of his EO. But they could be in the future if the President’s power to issue EOs in the matter is not questioned by the people or the congress and the Supreme Court does not limit the powers of the president to issue EOs.
There are 14.1 million illegal immigrants in the USA staying for more than a decade, working, having children, owning homes and paying taxes, all of which Biden sought to regularise and Trump seeks to end, given the problem of illegal migration across the southern borders.
Attorney general Pam Bondi has inaccurately interpreted the Supreme Court decision to say it will decide constitutionality of birthright citizenship in October this year. Bondi said during the press briefing at the White House that the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship in the next term that starts this fall.
But the high court hasn’t agreed yet to consider a birthright citizenship case in October as it hasn’t yet announced or published its argument schedule for the fall.
In order for the Supreme Court to “take up” a birthright citizenship-related case, parties involved in a case ripe for Supreme Court review would have to submit an application to that effect. That has not been done in any birthright citizenship-related case thus far.
Fate of Indians on H1B work permit visas having children in temporary residency status marrying another temporary resident on the same visa category residency faces a bar on automatic birthright citizenship to their children. Not just Indians but all Asian, African and Latino immigrants.
Now it all depends on how the Supreme Court decides on the Trump’s EO finally to end birthright citizenship which will take a couple of months, then it will be left to Trump to further expand the scope of his EO to bring all children of all categories born in the USA.
And if he does that, it could result in mass protests, civil unrest, hundreds of class action law suits in courts creating quite a messy situation in the country and a general loss of confidence of other countries in the USA to do any business. The impact would be much worse than Trump’s EO on universal tariffs on countries he believes fed off the country for years.
This sets the tempo for the 2026 midterm elections for the Congress where birth right citizenship will top the agenda for the voters along with his mass deportations, management of the economy and anti climate change decisions along with his stand on Iran, Middle East and China. (IPA Service)
