WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Supreme Court Justice is questioning President Donald Trump’s administration and lawyers who are challenging his efforts to end birthright citizenship within the country.
Thursday’s hearing marks the first time the U.S. Supreme Court heard a lawsuit in relation to the January 20th order granting citizenship to almost any infant born in U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
The outcome could take weeks, but it was not immediately clear when the court would rule. It also remained unclear whether the judiciary addressed the fundamental constitutionality of Trump’s order, or whether lower federal court justice would only control the narrower question of whether it was powered to block the implementation of orders nationwide.
Still, demonstrators and lawmakers gathered outside the Washington, D.C. courthouse said the dominant, challenging birthright citizenship corrodes the US national structure.
“We are at the best courts on this land as basic American promises are under attack. And we are here to say we are not on the clock,” CASA Legal Director Ama Frimpong told those gathered in protest.
“Everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States,” Frimon said.
Legal experts also say the ability to limit the federal court’s ability to order “national” or “universal” injunctions to block Trump’s enforcement actions is transformative in itself.
“That question, in the usual sense, will already shake up the legal foundations of the country. Whether or not the lower courts have the right to order a national injunction,” said Heidi News from outside the Al Jazeera court.
“But that’s really the second question that people are focusing on, if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants and children born to certain visa holders visiting the United States,” she said.
“It’s up to justice whether they want to go in any of those directions now.”
“If you have some kind of government, grab me.”
For more than two hours, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as individuals representing the nation and individuals who challenged Trump’s orders, addressed both issues of constitutional grandeur and legal detail.
Attorney General John Saurer began by laying out the Trump administration’s broad argument that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, has since been misinterpreted. The amendment claims that “ensures citizenship to former slave children, not illegal foreigners or temporary visitors.”
Prior to the hearing, Trump also reiterated his position in the true social post, saying that birthright citizenship has become a “silly country” that encourages the United States to visit to have children.
Sauer also targeted three federal judges who found themselves in favor of separate lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of the law. Plaintiffs in these cases include 22 state attorney generals, immigration rights groups, and individuals affected by the regulations. Sauer argued that the judge’s decision should only apply to plaintiffs in the case, not to the entire country.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether broader constitutional questions would be released from narrow questions within the judge’s scope, as the president’s orders were violated “in my number, by four Supreme Court precedents.”
This included the 1898 Supreme Court case, US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Other justices questioned the meaning of the scenario in which the court ruled that a judge could not issue a “state injunction” without answering fundamental constitutional questions.
Legal scholars point out that this could create a situation where Trump’s birthright citizenship termination does not apply to states or individuals who have successfully ordered court. That means birthright citizenship – at least temporarily, if they launch their own agenda, they will end up in 28 other states.
“Are there everyone affected by this EO? [executive order] Do I need to bring my own suit? “Judge Elena Kagan asked.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration’s debate has transformed the US judicial system into “if you have a kind of administration I’ll catch you.”
Under it, “Everyone has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”
Source link
