Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Trump’s Order Ending Birthright Citizenship
SCOTUS will also defer any consideration for to lift nationwide stay until after oral arguments.
On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from President Donald Trump’s administration regarding the end of birthright citizenship.
SCOTUS will also defer any consideration to lift the nationwide stay until after oral arguments.
On his first day in office, Trump signed “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
The executive order is meant to clarify the 14th Amendment.
A few days later, federal Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily blocked the order.
Trump’s administration filed three emergency applications, asking SCOTUS “to find that lower courts had erred in imposing bans on the policy that extended beyond the parties involved in the litigation.”
- DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPLICANTS v. CASA, INC., ET AL.
- DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPLICANTS v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.
- DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPLICANTS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL.
However, the administration did not ask SCOTUS about the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, with this court..
I’d rather they ruled on whether that judge has the authority to even step in on this
Of course he did; the plaintiffs had standing, so why would he not have the authority to order the administration to hold off on adopting a probably unconstitutional policy that would cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm, until the case could be heard and it could make an argument for why the new policy would be constitutional after all?
No he didn’t. He has no authority to issue a nationwide injunction for anything.
Of course he did. Why would he not have that authority? It’s the same State Department that’s being sued.
You didn’t say one word when a district court enjoined DAPA (“Deferred Action for Parents of Americans”, aka “son of DACA”). So you have no moral right to object to nationwide injunctions now.
its not about some “new policy” it is about returning to the original clear intent of that Article of Ammendment.
Read that Article and take care to understand the meaning of those words “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION thereof.”
Some pregnant mamma sneaking across the border to enter the US and have her kid on this side the line is clearly NOT subject to the jurisdiction there . She is in clear and blatant rebellion to “the jurisdiction thereof”.
You are full of shit. If she is not subject to the jurisdiction then she can’t be arrested or summoned to court, and can break any laws she likes with impunity. You clearly don’t believe that. Therefore you believe she is under US jurisdiction.
You’re also blatantly lying when you deny that it’s about a new policy. It is literally a new policy that Trump promulgated, and was never the policy before, in the entire history of the State Department.
It’s Trump’s Court now.
Can you count? Trump has appointed 3 of 9 Justices to SCOTUS. Even insofar as those 3 appointments are considered to be ‘Trump Justices’ it still requires a majority of all 9 of those Justices to get a victory. In no universe does 3 of 9 create a majority.
I can answer that question, That’s a big no. He can’t count, think, or reason. But he does love himself some downclicks, except for himself that it.
“J Err?”
Of the three, none are a guaranteed yes (and I think two are nos). And then there is Roberts.
Indeed so. Yet it remains a fact that the three members of SCOTUS appointed by Trump do not constitute a majority. Now if DJT should have another two appointment opportunities to SCOTUS then sure….at that point a fair argument can be made that the ‘Five Trump Justices’ and by extension Trump himself is to blame for SCOTUS rulings we disagree with.
If only they cloned Thomas and Alito. Sadly, no.
I would expect Thomas and Alito to find against Trump on this issue, if it ever came before them. But right now the policy isn’t even before the court; the hearing will only be about the motion to stay the district court’s injunction.
This ought to be interesting. A true lightning rod issue. Gentleman and ladies place your bets as to outcome. Please make sure to include the vote totals.
6-3 in favor of endless anchor babies and CCP spawn to become citizens. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch dissent on the side of sanity.
If it ever comes to the merits of the underlying issue, I expect it to be 9-0.
But this will be closer because it’s not about that, it’s only about the injunction. There are better arguments for staying the injunction than for upholding the new policy itself.
You need to read Elk v Wilkins.
It is the Controlling Opinion on the meaning of the “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Clause and it completely supports Trump’s position.
As does the 14th Amendment itself.
No, it is NOT the “controlling opinion” at all. And to whatever extent it is controlling it says the exact opposite of what you claim. It’s about a member of one of the two groups that were literally not subject to US jurisdiction in the 1860s: diplomats and “Indians not taxed”. When John Elk was born he was literally not subject to US jurisdiction. He was exempt from US law, did not have to pay any taxes, and could not be sued, summoned, or prosecuted.
That class of “Indians not taxed” still exists in constitutional law, but it’s an empty set, because in 1924 Congress subjected all Indians to US jurisdiction, including taxation. So the only category remaining outside US jurisdiction is diplomats and their families.
The outcome doesn’t matter.
This is the opening gambit. This gets the problem onto the table and shines a big light on it. Now there will be much publicizing and opinionating. The sheeple will now get to hear about it.
If Trump wins without a shot fired, well, then… great.
But that isn’t what anybody really expects
This will move the battle into the legislature and incite all the activists to beat their congressmen about the head and shoulders to do something official about it. Which I suspect they can do short of a new amendment, provided they put their minds to it. And that’s the oly thing that’s been missing this whole time anyway,
Say we if Trump is ending birthright citizenship does that mean we can end JR’s? Asking for a friend.
Why don’t you ask for yourself?
9 – 0 striking down the executive order.
If it comes to that, I agree. But the executive order is not before the court, so it can’t strike it down. And the injunction is on shakier ground. A decent case can be made that the district court should have allowed the policy to go ahead while the litigation proceeds, and if and when the policy is struck down the government can be ordered to issue all the affected babies with the necessary documents. In the meantime, it’s unlikely that they’ll need those documents, and if in one or two cases they do need them temporary documents can be issued.
Four justices will look at the Constitution and make their decision based upon that.
Four justices will rely entirely upon emotion and racial justice to form their opinion.
And the final justice will do whatever that justice’s blackmailers say.
Exactly…regardless if you hold the Constitution upside down and in a mirror to read it backwards, there is NO provision allowing, fostering, or hinting at birthright citizenship….the concept to suggest otherwise is illogical…at best. Then we have your outline of 4-4-1 so what would be fairly cut-n-dry to thinking people becomes a lesson in obfuscation and lawfare nebula.
That is utter bullshit. Birthright citizenship is explicitly in the constitution, and nobody can change it without an amendment. The administration’s position is ridiculous and if SCOTUS ever gets a crack at it it will strike it down 9-0.
Okay,. Milhouse, It’s explicitly in the Constitution. You say so.
Now, explain all the US nationals who are not citizens. BY LAW. In American Samoa, though born in America on undisputed American territory.
American Samoa is not the United States. The USA owns and rules it, but it was never incorporated into the USA, and therefore people born there are not born in the USA and thus not automatically citizens.
The same is true for USVI, Guam, and perhaps even PR, but in each case Congress specifically legislated that people born there are citizens anyway. Their citizenship comes not from the 14th amendment but from legislation. A future congress can change that legislation, but probably not revoke citizenships legitimately obtained under it.
When the amendment was debated in the Senate, they were pretty explicit about the definition, while questioning what and who are citizens and who or who may not be. Read the minutes of that discussion. In this instance, the justices should rule 9-0 in support of Trump’s executive order and put this to rest for eternity. https://www.justfacts.com/document/1866_birthright_citizenship.pdf
Your “justfacts” site is actually justlies. Outright brazen lies and deliberate misquotations. Yes, they were very clear about who was included: Everyone except diplomats and sovereign Indian tribes (what the constitution calls “Indians not taxed”). Some senators were quite upset that it would even include Gypsies. They were told yes it would, and they could like it or lump it.
Men will follow the Constitution and the women will rule on their feelies
Are you saying Roberts was born a woman?!
Well if he had the skills (and the height) would he be a NBA or WBA player?
How dare you assume gender
Since it is a forward looking policy v retroactive… it has a chance. By framing it this way the Trump Admin removes arguments about ‘reliance’ or liberty interest to preclude a ‘taking’. It also sidesteps the ‘disruptive’ arguments of doom and gloom if this is implemented.
As I understand the Trump policy guidance it wouldn’t disrupt any individuals or anything else. No one born here previously would ‘lose’ their US.Citizenship. it would impact those born to non Citizen Parents AFTER implementation. By doing it this way the Trump Admin neutralized the more powerful, emotional and practical arguments that could have been raised against it.
If the policy had not been stayed, it would have affected all babies born to aliens this year, as well as service organizations whose mission is to help immigrants find their way through the bureaucracy, and who would now be burdened with fighting each case individually.
As I see it the main argument against the injunction would be that the plaintiffs’ harm would be reparable, since babies are unlikely to need proof of citizenship that soon after birth. Any babies that need a passport before the case is heard can be issued temporary documents.
Yeah, the forward looking nature of the policy wouldn’t really be the huge disruption that the opponents might have claimed. There’s really not much to argue here. Wong comes closest to a ruling on this point but it turned on different facts; the Parents in that case were lawfully present at the time of Wong’s birth. That was the basis of the ruling that Wong couldn’t be refused reentry to the USA. Will be interesting to see how the CT ultimately rules. IMO it is a not a slam dunk for those opposed to the policy change and comes down to originalist v textualist philosophy. I suspect some of the lefty Justices will conveniently adopt newfound respect for textualism.
I don’t agree that there is any difference between originalism and textualism. Originalism means the original meaning of the text, not the intentions or feelings of those who adopted it. A newly-enacted law means what it says; what a normal member of the public, literate in English, who read it would think it says. Originalism simply says that meaning can’t change later. A law enacted 200 years ago still means what it meant then, i.e. what a normal person of that time would have thought it meant.
Everyone including President Trump knew this had to go to SCOTUS for a determination.
If the court rules that Trump is right, the Democrats will pull their usual nonsense, probably trying to burn cities again.
If it goes against Trump, look for the Republicans to start the process to amend the Constitution.
You have more faith in the Republicans that I do. Because I don’t expect them to fight over anything unless they’re really pushed into it.
No-brainer. Democrats, what a coincidence.
14th (1868) was added to our Constitution to protect the rights of children born to slaves of Democrats from Democrat states trying to keep them in chains and on the Democrat plantations. Should have sunsetted with the death of the last American to whom it applied. How ironic that Dems still use it as a weapon against common sense and America.
That is not what it says, and not what it was intended to say. Everyone who adopted it was very clear that it would guarantee the citizenship rights of everyone who was born under US jurisdiction, as well as everyone who was naturalized.
The arguments against it are outright dishonest, deliberately misquoting debates from the 1860s.
Even defending Democrats here.
Amazing.
So illegals have replaced blacks as their slaves. Considering the things they say and do, this is not a stretch..
Not so fast. The members of Indian Tribes were not granted automatic Citizenship. For that matter they were rounded up by the US Military and secured into reservations… the ones not killed of directly by bullets and sabers or indirectly by starvation/disease. The members of Tribes didn’t get automatic Citizenship until the 1920s several generations in between then and the 14A. How about US conquests like PR? Did everyone in those locations automatically become US Citizens? How about their children? Nope.
‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ is very clearly more than the mere physical presence of a person in a geographic area where the US govt exerts police power. The argument that b/c an illegal alien is potentially liable for hypothetical crimes and that this somehow makes him ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is absurd. Especially considering that an illegal Alien, by definition, has sought to evade the ‘jurisdiction’ of the US Govt and must continue to purposefully evade the US Govt.
IMO ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ involves an acceptance of a reciprocal duty of the Gov’t to the individual and the individual to the Gov’t. The performance of Civic duties are barred to illegal Aliens; militia service, Sheriff’s Posse as two examples that are restricted to Citizens. Citizens are also entitled to trail before a ‘jury of their peers’ and as you are aware Aliens, much less illegal Aliens don’t regularly serve on juries.
Yes so fast. Members of the sovereign Indian tribes were literally not subject to US jurisdiction at all. As one of the senators debating the 14th amendment said, they couldn’t be sued, they couldn’t be made to appear in court, they didn’t have to pay taxes, so how were they under US jurisdiction? Which means anyone who can be sued, who can be summoned, who does have to pay taxes (whether he does or not), who has to obey the law and can be arrested if he doesn’t, is included in the 14th amendment.
US territories that Congress did not incorporate into the USA are not part of it, and thus the 14th amendment doesn’t automatically give people born there citizenship; they are born under US jurisdiction, but not in the USA. The 14th specifies both criteria. In practice children born in all such territories except American Samoa do gain citizenship at birth, not because of the 14th amendment but because Congress has made laws saying so.
Indeed this is so. Diplomats and their families are physically present in a geographical area where the US govt exerts police power, but they are not subject to that power. Thus babies born into such families in the USA are not automatically US citizens. Illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity, or any other immunity, as evidenced by the very fact that they can be arrested and prosecuted.
Your last paragraph contradicts itself. You start talking about aliens who accept a reciprocal duty, but then go on to talk about functions that exclude all aliens. Even you don’t claim that legal aliens are not under US jurisdiction!
Typical from the moron.
Not so thinly veiled dog whistle to his racist base. ( which sadly is most of it).
“Don’t worry rubes, I’m going to do what I can to keep America white.”
Bulldust. There is no significant racism in his base, and he certainly has never pandered to it. He’s probably the least bigoted president ever. Certainly less bigoted than Biden.
I wonder how much they will address the merits.
Maybe just a curmudgeon but going to predict the Supreme Court agrees with their brethren and Trump gets shut down.
This is an issue that lawyers may love. Birthright citizenship can be argued either way with good arguments. I doubt there will be a unanimous decision.
Birthright citizenship is fine, but the citizenship of the child, like its DNA should be derived from the parents. If they are naturalized or married to a citizen, the American citizenship applies.
It should NEVER apply to people that came here illegally or for the goal of having an anchor baby.
You contradict yourself. The term “birthright citizenship”, in the context of the US constitution, means citizenship by right of being born in the USA. The USA’s founders deliberately rejected the European idea of citizenship by blood, in favor of the idea they’d inherited from English law, of citizenship by geographic territory.
It most definitely does apply to children born to parents who came here illegally, or with any given intention. They were born in the USA, they were born subject to US jurisdiction, therefore they are citizens and there is nothing anyone can do about it except amend the constitution.
There was an almost perfect argument for why absolute birthright citizenship for all shouldn’t exist that happened just the other day.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/17/us/lopez-gomez-citizen-detained-ice-florida/index.html
He was born here- of Mexican parents, and whisked off to a Mexican village before the age of 1. Not fluent- and therefore, not literate in English. Or, tellingly, Spanish. Speaks the Mayan language Tzotzil, which has no written form, so he’s not literate in that either.
If you’re going to insist he’s a citizen of the USA- then you also need to charge both his parents with child abuse for failing to see he received a proper education.
Born here, whisked away, returned with no no knowledge of laws or society in the USA. And, under Mexican law, having two Mexican parents, a Mexican citizen. Dual citizenship is another category that needs to be eliminated. Age 18- choose. Period.
Can we excuse the police for detaining him? Absolutely. A complete failure to be able to communicate- on his part. Expecting police in the USA to speak the Mayan language Tzotzil is a pipe dream. Actually, expecting anyone nearby to have even heard of the Mayan language Tzotzil is unrealistic.
The parent’s immigration status when he was born here was left unsaid. In any news article I glance at. Likely because they were here unlawfully.
The constitution disagrees with you. He is a US citizen, and it makes no difference what anyone thinks of it.
And when the police arrest someone they are required to find someone who can speak his language, so they can make him aware of his rights, and so they can question him.
They certainly can’t assume he’s not a US citizen just because he doesn’t speak English. There are many US citizens, born in PR, who speak no English. And from the founding until WW1 there were tens of thousands of US citizens who spoke only German.
Dual citizenship has been a fact since the very beginning of the USA, and there’s nothing US law can do about it. Dual citizenship was the official cause for the War of 1812.