On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first case of the term, addressing a significant challenge to a policy initiated by the Trump administration. The court will consider whether federal district courts acted in error by issuing nationwide injunctions against an executive order that sought to end the practice of birthright citizenship in the United States.

Legal Context and Core Question

The essence of this case revolves around the jurisdiction of federal courts rather than the substantive issue of birthright citizenship itself. The case poses a crucial question: “Should the Supreme Court stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states?” This inquiry addresses the powers and limits of federal judiciary as they relate to executive orders.

Understanding Birthright Citizenship

The principle of birthright citizenship is grounded in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historical context is vital; notably, in the 1857 ruling of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court had previously denied citizenship to enslaved individuals born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment was explicitly designed to overturn this precedent.

Further clarifications came in 1898 with the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court declared that children born within U.S. territory to foreign parents without diplomatic status are indeed citizens. This ruling emphasized that the clause’s historical understanding has excluded only very specific cases, such as children of foreign diplomats.

The Trump Administration’s Executive Order

On January 20, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order asserting that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or whose legal status is temporary. This policy revision suggests that going forward, only children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents would qualify for citizenship.

Nationwide Injunctions Explained

Challenges to Trump’s executive order quickly emerged, resulting in four federal district courts ruling the order unconstitutional and implementing nationwide injunctions. These decisions were later upheld by federal appellate courts, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court in three cases: Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey.

The Solicitor General’s Arguments

The Trump administration argued for a “modest” request to confine the injunctions to the individual plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits. However, critics assert this request is far from modest, as it proposes a transformative change in legal precedent. The Solicitor General contends that federal courts should be limited to providing relief only to the parties involved in a lawsuit, which could necessitate separate actions in each of the 94 federal districts for anyone else affected by the order.

Implications of Ending Nationwide Injunctions

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the administration’s stance, the ability for courts to issue nationwide injunctions would be significantly affected. This would mean that a negative ruling against an unconstitutional executive action would only apply within the jurisdiction of the district court that issued the ruling. The implications are substantial: individuals across the country could find themselves treated differently based on their geographic location.

Criticism and Defense of Nationwide Injunctions

While critics of nationwide injunctions cite concerns over a single district court’s ability to impose rulings that impact the entire nation, proponents argue that such rulings are merely temporary until the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, resolve the matter definitively. The alternative, according to advocates of nationwide injunctions, could lead to differing legal outcomes based on district jurisdictions.

Role of State Governments

Additionally, the Solicitor General’s brief raised questions about the capacity of state governments to sue on behalf of their residents regarding citizenship claims. The argument presented is that states should not have the authority to assert the individual rights of citizens against the federal government, further complicating avenues for redress under such policies.

Conclusion

This case encapsulates a critical intersection of executive power and judicial review, particularly as it pertains to immigration policy under a conservative presidency. The ongoing debate will shape not only the understanding of birthright citizenship but also the broader dynamics of checks and balances between the executive branch and the judiciary in the United States.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, provides insight into the constitutional implications of these actions. His work continues to inform discussions on civil rights and the parameters of federal authority.