Supreme Court Takes Up Birthright Citizenship Case

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s push to repeal birthright citizenship is set for a pivotal moment at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, following the recent repeal of a key part of his tariff policy.

The court will assess whether Trump has the authority to stop children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants from automatically receiving citizenship. This case is viewed as one of the most significant on the current docket.

“Supreme Court justices must recognize this as a clear red line; granting citizenship is not in their power,” said Mike Davis, a Trump supporter and founder of the Article III Project, speaking to the Post. “We the people never consented to this.”

“If judges fail to adhere to the law, their legitimacy will be compromised,” he added. “This is the most critical case facing the Supreme Court.”

Trump’s directive aimed at abolishing birthright citizenship, which he signed upon taking office, is now under scrutiny by the high court.

Previously, Trump had considered addressing birthright citizenship during his first term, but ultimately did not follow through. Even conservative legal experts expressed doubts at the time about the feasibility of abolishing it via executive order.

Ming-Su Chen, a law professor, noted, “I’m surprised the Supreme Court would consider this case seriously, as the legal basis against Trump’s order seems rather clear.”

The Fourteenth Amendment, she explained, guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to its jurisdiction and are American nationals.”

Trump’s team argues that illegal immigrants do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction, citing the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, which stated that Native American children don’t automatically qualify for citizenship.

“Historical evidence supports that children of temporary or illegal aliens do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction,” his team’s report asserted.

Congress later passed the Citizenship Act of 1940, ensuring citizenship for Native American children.

Gerald Newman, a Harvard Law professor focused on immigration and constitutional law, mentioned that the act aimed to clarify citizenship rules, while supporters of Trump’s order claim it highlights ambiguities in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court must decide if Trump’s directive aligns with the law and the Amendment. So far, all lower courts reviewing the order have deemed it illegal. Previously, the Court addressed related issues in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that most children born on U.S. soil are citizens, except for a few exceptions.

Ilhan Wurman, also a law professor, pointed out that Wong Kim Ark involved legally settled parents, whereas the current case concerns children of undocumented or temporary residents.

Legal experts suggest that Trump’s reliance on an executive order complicates his efforts to terminate birthright citizenship. “The idea that a president can change such a fundamental interpretation without legislative backing is new,” Newman remarked, calling the case against Trump’s order strong.

Yet, Wurman argued that presidents regularly interpret laws as a part of enforcing them, and similar past interpretations have been tested in courts.

Critics of birthright citizenship claim it attracts illegal immigration and exacerbates border crises. Davis claimed, “The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t meant to grant citizenship to illegal aliens.” He posed provocative questions about the implications of granting citizenship to children of foreign visitors versus illegal immigrants.

Some legal analysts argue that existing Supreme Court rulings indicate children’s rights differ from those of their parents in the context of illegal immigration. “I think it’s unjust to penalize children for their parents’ choices,” one expert argued.

Trump has expressed worries that the Supreme Court could rule unfavorably for him on this issue, especially after a significant setback with tariffs last month.

Recently, he stated on social media, “This isn’t about wealthy foreigners wanting a ticket to American citizenship. It’s about the consequences of illegal immigration.” He suggested that the rest of the world mocks U.S. legal processes while profiting from citizenship sales.

In its last term, the Supreme Court dealt with a related issue regarding whether lower courts could issue universal injunctions against presidential actions, deciding ultimately in favor of Trump. However, his executive order faced a legal block after being refiled as a class action suit.

The justices have yet to express much about their views regarding the merits of this latest case.