Supreme Court hears arguments in birthright citizenship case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday successful a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's effort to bounds who gets birthright citizenship. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

At the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, the justices heard a lawsuit that challenges the law proviso guaranteeing automatic citizenship to each babies calved successful the United States, but the arguments focused connected a abstracted question: tin national territory tribunal judges regularisation against the medication connected a nationwide basis.

Several justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration's statement that little courts should not person the close to contented nationwide injunctions.

"What bash hospitals bash with a newborn? What bash states bash with a newborn?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General John Sauer, the government's lawyer, astir the national authorities would enforce Trump's order.

Justice Brown Jackson was much pointed.

"Your statement seems to crook our justness system, successful my presumption astatine least, into a drawback maine if you tin benignant of authorities … wherever everybody has to person a lawyer and record a suit successful bid for the authorities to halt violating people's rights," she said.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the 22 states suing the government, told the tribunal that nationwide injunctions should beryllium disposable successful "narrow circumstances" — similar this lawsuit involving birthright citizenship.

Kelsi Corkran, who represented large women and migrant rights groups successful the case, suggested allowing nationwide injunctions lone erstwhile the authorities enactment is deemed by plaintiffs to beryllium violating the Constitution.

She argued that an injunction constricted to lone parties successful the lawsuit would not beryllium "administratively workable."

President Trump has agelong maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. So, connected Day One of his 2nd statesmanlike term, he issued an enforcement order barring automatic citizenship for immoderate baby born successful the U.S. whose parents entered the state illegally, oregon who were present legally but connected a impermanent visa.

On Thursday, he posted connected Truth social that "it each started close aft the Civil War ended, it had thing to bash with existent time Immigration Policy!" — and repeated incorrect claims that the U.S. is the lone state with birthright citizenship.

Immigrant rights groups and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump bid successful court. Since then, 3 national judges, blimpish and liberal, person ruled that the Trump enforcement bid is, arsenic 1 enactment it, "blatantly unconstitutional." And 3 abstracted appeals courts person refused to unblock those orders portion appeals are ongoing. Meanwhile, Trump's ineligible assertion has fewer supporters.

Nonetheless, the Trump medication took its lawsuit to the Supreme Court connected an exigency basis. But alternatively of asking the tribunal to regularisation connected the legality of Trump's enforcement order, the medication focused its statement connected the powerfulness of national territory tribunal judges to bash what they did present — regularisation against the medication connected a nationwide basis.

This is simply a processing communicative and volition beryllium updated.