In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the US Justice Department asked to limit the scope of the lower court’s nationwide injunctions. They requested that the injunctions be restricted to the specific plaintiffs involved in the cases from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington.
NEW DELHI: Former US President Donald Trump has taken his fight to end birthright citizenship in the United States to the Supreme Court. His executive order, signed on his first day in office, aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas like student, work, or tourist visas.
However, this order was blocked by federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
What is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
It states, “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.”
Trump argued that children born to individuals who are in the US illegally, or on temporary visas, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country. Therefore, they should not be granted citizenship.
In an emergency application to the Supreme Court, the US Justice Department asked to limit the scope of the lower court’s nationwide injunctions. They requested that the injunctions be restricted to the specific plaintiffs involved in the cases from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington.
Sarah Harris, the acting solicitor general, described the request as “modest.” She stated, “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country.”
Harris further argued, “While the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.”
The Trump administration faced legal challenges across the country, particularly related to immigration, government budget cuts, and workforce reductions. Recently, a district judge in California ordered six federal agencies to rehire thousands of probationary workers who had been terminated.
Sarah Harris criticized the widespread use of injunctions, stating, “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions,” and argued that they are preventing “the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions.”
Judge John Coughenour from Washington state, who presided over the birthright citizenship case, described Trump’s executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
ALSO READ: Elon Musk Faces Major Legal Battle Over Alleged Unconstitutional Role in US Government
Coughenour, a judge appointed by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, emphasized,
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is.”
Trump’s executive order was scheduled to take effect on February 19. However, with ongoing legal battles and Supreme Court involvement, the final decision remains pending. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, is expected to play a key role in determining the extent of presidential executive power.
