Supreme Court Case on Birthright Citizenship Raises Concerns
The recent Supreme Court case, Trump vs. Casa, ended with a 6-3 majority opinion written by Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The ruling emphasizes that while enforcers must adhere to the law, the judiciary doesn’t have unrestricted power to uphold this obligation.
This idea, quite frankly, is alarming for many. It seems far from what the framers of the Constitution intended. Imagine if those words had made the rounds during the Constitution’s creation—there would have been chaos. Critics of the Constitution, like Patrick Henry, viewed the newly proposed government structure as a nod towards monarchy. This sentiment surely resonates with many Americans today.
Barrett’s statement originated from a challenge against Executive Order 14160, signed by Donald Trump on January 20th. This order outlined specific instances in which individuals born in the U.S. would not qualify for citizenship. There’s a notable assertion within this order: “The 14th amendment has never been understood as a blanket citizenship guarantee for all born in the U.S.”
The 14th Amendment itself, established in the wake of the controversial Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision in 1857, was described by Justice Felix Frankfurter as “one of the court’s major self-inflictions.” In a troubling context, this ruling from Justice Roger B. Taney declared that slaves were considered property, lacking constitutional rights—a situation Frederick Douglass sharply criticized, equating it to the treatment of livestock sold at auctions.
When the Trump administration brought the lawsuit to the Supreme Court, they didn’t question the constitutionality of their executive order but rather the ability of federal courts to issue a nationwide injunction against it.
In a related development, a Federal Judge in New Hampshire reinstated the national ban against Trump’s order, following a class-action suit by the American Civil Liberties Union after the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Shortly after the ruling, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields declared that the Trump administration would “strive vigorously against the attempts by these district court judges to obstruct President Trump’s policies.”
Moreover, Trump referred to birthright citizenship as a “historical myth,” claiming it only applied to “slave babies.” He further asserted that the 14th Amendment “has never been accepted as a universal citizenship extension to all born in the U.S.”
This interpretation is quite simply erroneous. Various decisions made by the Supreme Court since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 established that individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their nationality, possessed full citizenship rights.
Despite this, Trump expressed gratitude towards the court for its ruling. The dissenting justices, however, weren’t as appreciative.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the ruling as a “tragedy,” voicing concerns about the precedent set by the court’s decisions. She warned of potential future risks, suggesting that if birthright citizenship could be challenged, so could other rights, like the ability for certain faith groups to assemble peacefully.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed her dismay over the court’s apparent disregard for the 14th Amendment. “A Martian observing this would surely question the value of our Constitution,” she remarked, pondering its role in safeguarding people’s rights.
In her concluding thoughts, Jackson suggested that what Americans refer to as constitutional rights seems to lack tangible value.
This Supreme Court ruling represents a further blow to the integrity of the Constitution, according to retired Federal Court of Appeal Judge J. Michael Luttig, who stated that it’s now “impossible for the Supreme Court to control this president.”
Trump appears to relish the newfound powers he wields. After signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, he claimed to feel stronger now than during his first term. In this context, he may be right. There’s a potentially serious threat looming over the Republic.
The Republican platform of 1860 emphasized the importance of preserving the principles in both the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution, underscoring their value in maintaining Republican institutions. Yet, Trump’s Republican Party seems to have strayed from those foundational ideas.
Political scientists Nicholas F. Jacobs and Sydney M. Milks state in their recent book “Destroy the Republic” that “The Republic is ailing,” and frankly, it’s not in good shape.
Reflecting back on events like the brutal killing of George Floyd at the hands of former officer Derek Chauvin—who kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds—highlights a chilling parallel. Just as historical slave owners sought to maintain their grip on power, Trump and the Supreme Court seem to uphold a similar hold over the Constitution, with every moment counting.
