The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request by President Donald Trump to make birthright citizenship more narrowly defined, and blocked a key immigration proposal by the administration aimed at curbing a constitutional right that has been long recognised in the United States.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court ruled in favor of a lower court which had struck down President Trump’s executive order designed to end the “birthright citizenship” doctrine, which grants citizenship to children of American citizens and lawful permanent residents, also referred to as “green card” holders.
The decision is the second significant loss the president has had at the Supreme Court this year after the court ruled in favor of Boeing against his sweeping worldwide tariff policy in February.
The issue before the courts was the US Constitution, 14th amendment, Citizenship Clause, which reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they are born.
The executive order was signed by Trump on his first day back in office as he seeks to rein in legal and illegal immigration. His government said that the constitution’s reference to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should not apply to “children of parents who are in the country unlawfully or living in the United States on temporary visas, including those for students or foreign workers.
Administration lawyers argued that citizenship should only be granted to children whose parents have a permanent legal relationship and principal allegiance to the United States—by lawful permanent residence or citizenship.
Those who opposed the order said that the government’s interpretation was inconsistent with the Constitution and with precedent set in previous cases. They cited the Supreme Court case from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled that children born on US soil are citizens, and only under certain exceptions, like a child of a foreign diplomat or a member of an occupying enemy force.
In April during oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the administration, stating that unlimited citizenship to the children of immigrants had led to “birth tourism” – a practice by which foreign nationals would come to the United States to give birth to U.S. citizens. But asked by the justices, Sauer admitted that there was no precise record of the extent of the practice.
The Supreme Court appeal was brought before the high court by the parents and children in New Hampshire who brought the class-action suit, claiming the executive order would compromise the citizenship rights of newborns nationwide. Lawyers had estimated that the policy could have impacted up to 250,000 babies born in the country every year, and that numerous families would have to establish the citizenship status of their newborns.
In a previous ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante had deemed the case to be a class action involving all 50 states, and had suspended implementation of the order while the case was being appealed.
The court’s ruling leaves the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment intact and the nationwide injunction continues to be in effect. The decision also upholds the constitutional doctrine that the majority of children born on American soil are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.
