Supreme Court to hear arguments in “birthright citizenship” case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take up one of the highest-profile cases of the year - a challenge to President Trump’s executive order that would end birthright citizenship.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order which would limit birthright citizenship only to people with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.

Georgetown Law Professor Michele Goodwin teaches at the law school at Georgetown University, “Well, at the lower court levels, this is the reason why it has not gone into effect, is that it’s been rejected. I mean, it’s something that is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

At issue is the meaning of the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment. This was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the end of slavery. That clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The Trump administration argues that birthright citizenship should not be automatically given to children of people who entered the country illegally or those born to people with temporary legal status. Solicitor General John Sauer is a court filing says that the Citizenship Clause was enacted to overrule Dred Scott v. Sanford and give citizenship only to formerly enslaved people and their children following the Civil War.

That interpretation, however, was rejected by the Court in an 1898 case known as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Professor Goodwin, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University explains, “But if you take the position that the reconstruction amendments apply only to people of formerly descended from slaves, then that would mean, you know, 100 years’ worth of jurisprudence that involves corporations and involves so many different things goes out the window. Of course, our Constitution doesn’t apply to just one category of people.”

The Trump administrations says that the ‘citizenship clause’ has provided what it calls a “powerful” incentive for women to “travel to the U.S. solely to acquire citizenship for their children.” But the rate of so-called “birth tourism” is marginal and federal law already prohibits the issuance of tourist visas to pregnant seeking to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.

Late Tuesday, President Trump announced he intends to listen to the arguments in person at the Supreme Court. In extensive remarks from the Oval Office, the president insisted that, “This was about slaves. And if you take a look, slaves. We’re talking about slaves from the Civil War. And if you take a look at when it was filed, all of this legislation, all of this, everything having to do with birthright citizenship, it was at the end of the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn’t have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”

A decision by the Court is expected by late June.