Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship, dealing a sharp rebuke to the president’s aggressive immigration agenda.
In a sharply divided opinion, the court ruled that, “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
Writing for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that regardless of the legal status of their parents the children “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are ‘born…in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”
Immigration restrictions have been a core principle of Trump’s governing doctrine and one of his top political priorities. On the very first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would have denied citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without permanent legal status.
The American Civil Liberties Union immediately sued the Trump administration to block the order from being enforced.
U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who had filed an amicus brief in support of Trump’s position, announced that he will propose a constitutional amendment to block birthright citizenship after Tuesday’s ruling.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” Trump asserted in the executive order, which is titled: “Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship.” The order would have made it the policy of the United States not to “issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons” if either of their parents were undocumented at the time of their birth.
A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the order until the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in the case, which came Tuesday.
ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case before the court, said after the ruling that the president’s executive order was an overstep of his authority. “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat. Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights.
“The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong,” she said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in the majority opinion. Dissenting were justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the opinion in part but also dissented on the grounds that Trump’s executive order does contravene a federal statute.
Kavanaugh said that it was up to Congress to revise the Fourteenth Amendment “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But Congress has not yet done so.”
In his broader dissent, Thomas wrote: “The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War, states 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.” This amendment guaranteed citizenship for all formerly enslaved people born in the United States.
Both the majority and dissenting opinions referenced Dred Scott v. Sandford, the landmark 1857 Missouri case in which the court ruled that Black people — whether enslaved or free — were not citizens of the United States and could never become citizens. The 14th Amendment was seen as a direct repudiation of the Dred Scott decision.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to people born on U.S. soil to alien parents. This precedent was later codified by Congress.
In his amicus brief, Schmitt argued that the Citizenship Clause and existing precedent do not grant citizenship to people born on U.S. soil to those whose parents are in the country illegally.
“The text, structure, and history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause support the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order,” Schmitt wrote.
In response to the decision, Schmitt issued a statement that he is seeking to amend the Constitution to “protect American citizenship and reign in birthright citizenship.”
“Under the Supreme Court’s erroneous interpretation, American citizenship is extended to anyone who happens to be on U.S. soil when they’re born — even if they were here in violation of our laws,” Schmitt said in the release.
Though Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress, their margins are slim, so passage of a Constitutional amendment is unlikely. It would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. If such an amendment was approved by Congress, it would require ratification in 38 of the 50 states to go into effect.