What should I know about the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s Case of Birth Right

The Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump a major victory Friday, ruling that a judge could not prevent the presidential order from working nationwide.

The case stems from President Donald Trump’s termination of bid for birthright citizenship for certain children, which has been frozen by multiple lower courts. With Friday’s decision, the order can now begin to proceed.

Six conservative members of the Supreme Court supported the president and found that the ban could only apply to those prosecuted.

Trump appointed three judges in his first term.

Meanwhile, the Liberal judge said the ruling went too far in reducing the power of the court and strengthening the president.

Today’s ruling is about these courts’ use of the injunction – not Trump’s birthright citizen order itself – which means it may also apply to other other cases involving a national injunction.

Live: Following BBC’s report on Supreme Court ruling

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to terminate automatic civil rights for nearly everyone born on U.S. territory, commonly known as “birth right citizenship.”

The move was immediately filed by five pregnant women, 22 states, two cities, Maryland immigration advocacy group CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Program.

They argue that the order violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which establishes that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the country in which they reside.”

However, the Trump administration said the “bound by its jurisdiction” clause means that the amendment does not include children in countries that are not permanent or legal.

Judges in District Courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington issued a national injunction that prevented the order from going into effect.

In Washington, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Trump’s Justice Department replied that the case does not guarantee “special measures” to the interim restraining order and appealed to the Supreme Court.

The ban has been a check on Trump during his second term in a series of execution orders signed by the president.

About 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts, which, despite the Supreme Court eventually stepping in and allowing the policy to be enforced, prevented the Trump administration from banning most trans people from rejecting the military.

The primacy conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett made the point, saying the lower courts have too much power in freezing Trump’s orders. According to the Constitution, the executive (president), the judicial (court) and the legislative (presidential) government branches should be equal.

“The federal courts do not conduct general oversight of the executive branch; they resolved cases and disputes consistent with Congress given them,” Judge Barrett wrote. “When the court concluded that the executive branch had taken illegal action, the answer was neither the court nor beyond its authority.”

Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in an agreed view that the Supreme Court would continue to intervene if the lower court does not apply “historical fairness restrictions”.

The Supreme Court has not completely lifted the injunction. A judge can prevent the order from taking effect on people who file a lawsuit against them as the lawsuit is underway. Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote that those who challenge the order could unite “in the state, nation, and even nation” in class action lawsuits.

The issue of national ban has long plagued Supreme Court justices across the ideological field.

“It’s wrong to have a magistrate who can stop a national policy on his track and go through a few years of normal processes,” said Elena Kagan, a freelance lawyer, in a 2022 speech.

The nationwide ban has also been criticized for enabling so-called forum shopping – the practice of litigation in jurisdictions where possible rulings may be more favorable.

Another criticism of the ban is the speed and far-reaching impact of their delivery.

The Trump administration argued that the judge made high decisions in the case and had little time to consider the case and “low information.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal, wrote a passionate objection from the ruling, which she read from the bench.

She wrote that the ruling received too much power from the court that the three branches of the government were no longer equal, while arguing that the government was asking the court to make a decision on the injunction rather than on the right to birth citizenship. She also wrote extensively about birthright citizenship.

Judge Sotomayor wrote: “By depriving all federal courts, including itself, the courts, the court affirmed the judiciary’s power to prevent executives from enforcing the most unconstitutional policies.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had earlier said the Trump administration’s argument advocated “if you can” the judicial system “catch me.”

“Your argument says ‘We have to keep doing this until everyone who may be hurt by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc.’

“Allowing executives to decide against anyone who has not yet been prosecuted is an existential threat to the rule of law,” she wrote on Friday.

Overall, the Liberal Justice and those who oppose the Trump administration are concerned about consistency, saying there will be “chaos” without a national ban, creating a piece of paper of citizenship.

The order will be effective within 30 days of no action.

According to this view, the injunction is only reserved for “every plaintiff has a lawsuit.”

Margo Schlanger, a law scholar at the University of Michigan, said lower courts can still rule assured a national injunction when the state itself is a plaintiff. But such explanations may also be appealed by the federal government, she noted.

“It narrowed the road to the ban, but it didn’t cut it off completely,” she told the BBC.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the merits of the right-of-birth citizen order itself at a certain future date.

Most legal scholars believe that it may be found unconstitutional.

Judge Sotomayor wrote in her objection that the right to birth citizenship is a “land law” and that the order is “apparently unconstitutional”.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Friday that the administration hopes the Supreme Court agrees to it and upholds the order in October.