UJ
—
The administration of President Donald Trump submitted a series of emergency appeals to the Supreme Court on Thursday, urging it to permit the continuation of plans to abolish birthright citizenship. This push highlights a controversial legal theory that has been largely dismissed by multiple lower courts.
In its emergency appeals, the Trump administration contended that lower courts overstepped their bounds by issuing nationwide injunctions that hindered the contentious policy, asking the justices to mitigate the effects of these rulings.
Appeals courts have dismissed the administration’s request to temporarily halt lower court decisions that placed nationwide injunctions on an executive order established on the first day of Trump’s second term.
The Justice Department asserted in its emergency appeals to the Supreme Court that “universal injunctions have proliferated since the beginning of this administration.” It articulated that these injunctions prevent a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforceable across the nation, affecting “hundreds of thousands” of unnamed individuals who are “not before the court nor identified by the court.”
For over 150 years, the courts have interpreted the text of the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. A pivotal Supreme Court ruling from 1898 reinforced this interpretation, and there has been no indication from the current court that it intends to reconsider this decision.
However, some conservatives argue that these longstanding interpretations are incorrect because the 14th Amendment specifies that citizenship benefits are applicable only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. According to this perspective, undocumented immigrants are considered to be under the jurisdiction of their native countries.
This story is currently developing and will be updated.
