The White House has filed a request to the U.S. Supreme Court for justices to block several stays issued by federal court judges relating to President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Three cases in total have blocked Trump’s order, which aims to end the practice of automatically granting people citizenship if they are born in the U.S. — a right that is recognized by dozens of countries around the globe in their own laws (including nearly every country in the Western Hemisphere). While the filing (officially submitted by acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris) admits that the cases “raise important constitutional questions,” it states that the administration is making a “modest” request — that a stay on their current temporary restraining orders be made in the interim period while arguments are discussed and cases are decided in those lower courts.
Such a stay would allow the Trump administration to disrupt more than 125 years of unchanged precedent that recognizes that a person born in the U.S. is conferred citizenship rights.
Harris’s argument rests on disrupting another important precedent, relating to checks and balances in the government — that of a federal judge’s power to block presidential actions or orders if they are blatantly unconstitutional.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris wrote in the brief. “The Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions.”
She added:
Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.
Trump’s executive order, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was issued on his first day in office. It boldly — and errantly — claimed that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”
Yet, since the late 19th century, with limited exceptions, that’s exactly how courts (including the Supreme Court) have read the 14th Amendment, which reads that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Many legal experts say that Trump’s attempt to usurp the authority of the Constitution is likely to fail. But if the Supreme Court rules against the idea that district court judges can block Trump’s orders, the case could create contentious precedent nonetheless.
“At the very least, they have an indication that they have a better chance on the injunction question than on the [constitutional question] of birthright citizenship,” Ilya Somin, a professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, told NPR.
“The Supreme Court may well limit the injunctions partially, maybe not to the extent that the Trump administration wants, but [to the extent] that will allow the Trump administration to claim a political victory,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired law professor from Cornell University.
Such a decision, however, “would cause chaos and confusion as to who was included in the court rulings and who is potentially subject to the birthright citizenship ban” if the injunctions are lifted, even temporarily, Yale-Loehr added.
Unlike mainstream media, we’re not capitulating to Trump.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.