Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship expands Trump’s power

The Supreme Court on Friday provided a major victory to Donald Trump and the future U.S. president when curbing the power of lower courts to block the execution of orders.

President Trump laughed as he addressed reporters on the podium in the White House briefing room, calling it a “big and amazing decision” that the administration was “very happy”.

He said this was a “great victory for the Constitution, separation of power and the rule of law.”

The court’s ruling not only affected Trump’s birthright citizen order, but also inspired him to formulate many other policy actions temporarily foiled by similar injunctions.

The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on U.S. land – at least for now. Now, the White House will have to implement its plans, which is no easy task.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump’s executive order to end reproductive citizenship, effective within a month, while leaving lower courts with curbing the impact on those who have litigation.

Traditionally, states handle processing birth certificates, and many states do not record their parents’ citizenship. Regardless of what the Trump administration may wish to do, the Democratic-run state government will not rush to do so.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for most people, opening publicly for states to show that action on Trump’s right to birth citizenship is broader.

This sets for the big legal battle that is about to take place.

“As the states have seen, their harms – the financial harm and administrative burden of relying on citizens to rely on welfare programs, cannot be remedied without blankets prohibiting executive orders.”

“The lower courts should determine whether narrower injunctions are appropriate, so we leave them to consider these and any relevant arguments.”

President Trump described the court’s ruling as a “huge victory.”

He added that the “citizen scam of right to birth” is “indirect, difficult” and this decision will prevent “the process of deceiving our immigration.”

Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the U.S. will end its reproductive right citizenship in October at its next meeting.

The court’s decision to restrict the power of lower federal judges to issue a national injunction will immediately have broad consequences.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents often criticize what they call ideological jurists in the federal district court who are able to block administrative actions passed by Congress, even laws with one hand.

At the heart of this high-profile case, the cancellation of automatic citizenship on U.S. land is the child of undocumented immigrants, but Trump has taken many other actions in recent months, which have also been undertaken by lower-level judges.

From Trump’s inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Bureau calculated 25 such situations.

“We can now correctly propose policies that are wrongly prohibited,” Trump told reporters after Friday’s court ruling.

The lower court blocked the president’s cuts to foreign aid, diversification programs and other government agencies, limiting his ability to terminate government employees, put aside other immigration reforms, and suspended changes to the election process.

Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, the government is on a stronger standpoint, asking the court to allow it to promote many such efforts.

During Biden’s presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from crafting new environmental regulations, providing student loan forgiveness and amending immigration rules. The court also blocked changes in the normal immigration status of some undocumented immigrants during Barack Obama’s presidency and prevented him from qualifying for more white-collar employees.

In all these types of cases, the court will eventually be able to step in and stop what they consider to be illegal or unconstitutional presidential actions.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court said: “The lower court should act quickly to ensure that in each plaintiff the injunction is comparable to that rule, otherwise the principle of fairness is adhered to.”

But this will develop further in the appeal and judicial proceedings at the Supreme Court level. Meanwhile, the President – ​​Donald Trump and his successors, both Republicans and Democrats – will have more time and space to act.