Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ex-Order is elevated to Supreme Court

[Melensdad]

This one got fast tracked straight to the Supreme Court because of the injunction issued by the judge.

The basis of 'birthright citizenship' has been before the SCOTUS one time before, but the case involved a LEGAL immigrant whose parents were not citizens. Trump is arguing, in his Ex-O, that ILLEGAL immigrants are not entitled automatic citizenship. Legal scholars have lined up on both sides of this issue, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the court.

Appeals court won’t immediately revive Trump’s birthright citizenship order

A federal appeals court Wednesday evening declined the Trump administration’s request to partially revive the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The Justice Depar…

thehill.com

Story covered by THE HILL website, generally a left of center news source but they often cover legal issues with clarity.

Appeals court won’t immediately revive Trump’s birthright citizenship order​

02/19/25 09:51 PM ET​

Court Battles

​

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on birthright citizenship in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)​

​

A federal appeals court Wednesday evening declined the Trump administration’s request to partially revive the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. ​

​

The Justice Department asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately limit a district judge’s ruling, one of multiple indefinitely blocking Trump’s order nationwide, to only the individual plaintiffs who sued in an underlying case. ​

​

The three-judge appeals panel wrote in its ruling that the administration had “not made a ‘strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits’ of this appeal.” ​

​

Trump’s order would restrict birthright citizenship from being extended to children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status, part of a flurry of immigration actions he signed on his first day in office. Multiple judges have found the order is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the 14thAmendment. ​

​

Wednesday’s ruling marks the first time an appeals court has materially weighed in on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which has come under 10 lawsuits across the country. Though the case will continue before the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department could now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. ​

​

The 9th Circuit panel comprised William Canby, an appointee of former President Carter; Milan Smith, an appointee of the younger former President Bush; and Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee. ​

​

Forrest wrote separately to stress that the administration had not cleared the high bar for the court’s emergency intervention. ​

​

“And just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make. A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily,” Forrest wrote. ​

​

She went on to caution judges against issuing such weighty rulings on an emergency basis, warning that it is contributing to low trust in the judiciary. ​

​

“When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise,” Forrest wrote. ​

​

“In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system,” she continued. “Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide (or pre-decide) cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice.” ​

​

The administration filed its appeal after a federal district judge in Seattle hearing two lawsuits blocked Trump’s order and accused him of undermining the rule of law. One case was filed by four Democratic state attorneys general, while the other was brought by several pregnant mothers without permanent legal status. ​

 

[Patriot]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

 

[Melensdad]

I've looked at this issue closely. My conclusion is that a review by the Supreme Court will find that the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means that one must be a citizen, or at the very least a legal resident, to qualify for their children born in the U.S. to automatically become U.S. citizens.

If you look at the original intention by the drafters of the 14th Amendment, of that key phrase, you'll see what I mean. Here's a good link for those who'd like to read up on it: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

I think this will be a significant Supreme Court decision with immense reverberations.

I'm no legal scholar but I've been reading scholars on both sides of this issue and believe the original intent will be the deciding factor. There are speeches and writings on what it is supposed to mean

 

[Patriot]

I'm no legal scholar but I've been reading scholars on both sides of this issue and believe the original intent will be the deciding factor. There are speeches and writings on what it is supposed to mean

Yes, ultimately what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended was that nobody who still owed allegiance to another country could beget a child in the U.S. who was automatically granted citizenship at birth, for obvious reasons.

For example, and to apply that to today's world, an immigrant from, say, Mexico, who illegally enters and resides in the U.S., is still a citizen of Mexico, as he/she did not pledge citizenship allegiance to the U.S. and, just as importantly, did not renounce citizenship allegiance to Mexico. If that person then has a child in the U.S., while in this status, who is to say that the child wouldn't owe more fealty to Mexico, considering the parent(s) has not renounced citizenship, than to the U.S.? After all, it is a real possibility, and the child has never been required to pledge otherwise.

What puts this issue into starkest perspective is if one considers the status of the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil. They do not become U.S. citizens at birth. The diplomat is in the U.S. legally, and is serving a vital function, yet that is not enough, even if the diplomat requested it, the child would not be a U.S. citizen at birth. The best they could do is register to make the child a lawful permanent resident, if they so desire. On the other hand, a person who illegally enters, who resides in the U.S. without permission, can give birth to an automatic U.S. citizen? It makes absolutely no sense.