President Trump might call Senator Adam Schiff of California “Shifty,” but, well, there’s a certain irony there, considering his own unpredictability.
Last month, during a United Nations speech, Trump changed his stance, declaring that Ukraine could regain its territory through military action. He also suggested that NATO allies could shoot down Russian planes if they entered their airspace.
He stated there’s no need for Ukraine to concede land for a peace agreement with Russia. Trump proclaimed that, with European backing, the Ukrainian army was “capable of fighting and reclaiming everything in Ukraine as it was originally.”
This shift might signal that Trump is reconsidering previous, somewhat controversial policies, like his executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship. He faced significant defeat in lower federal courts over this issue.
On June 27, the Supreme Court sidestepped a conflict surrounding this matter and reinforced the use of national injunctions. The Constitution explicitly states that those born in the U.S. are citizens.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, which could be viewed as a significant setback, Trump was vocal about the decisions made in June, declaring it a “huge victory.”
Despite his challenges, he appears willing to align himself with these rulings. Interestingly, within eight months, he sought to apply the approach through what’s known as the Shadow Docket.
It’s worth noting that when the administration loses cases in lower courts, they generally seek emergency relief. While there are minor instances of pushback, they tend to stick closely to lower court judgments.
The birthright citizenship case highlights this trend. In June, the Supreme Court maintained a few “universal” injunctions against Trump’s executive order in the case known as Casa, Inc. v. Trump.
While a provisional injunction was upheld against the plaintiffs in three cases, it left other questions open, particularly regarding how it would impact those not party to the case.
After the Fourth Circuit sent the case back to district court, a judge in Maryland accepted a class action lawsuit on behalf of a child against the executive order, which led to a national interim injunction.
Even though the government appeared to be able to appeal to the Fourth Circuit, it chose not to contest either the interim injunction or the class certification.
In Washington vs. Trump on July 23, a split panel of the Ninth Circuit confirmed that the district court’s injunction was acceptable if it provided full relief to the plaintiffs. This reinstated a nationwide interim injunction against the executive order.
As in Maryland, the government struggled to respond to lawsuits effectively.
A separate case, Barbara v. Trump, submitted in New Hampshire, also saw a “Temporary” national class certified for everyone affected by the executive order, with relief granted through a preliminary injunction.
The government delayed making an appeal until nearly the last moment and hasn’t filed for either a stay or a quick review in the First Circuit. This slow response raises questions about the administration’s commitment to this case, especially considering its potential significance.
There’s an impression that the government lacks confidence in winning, given their previous attempts to gain immediate shadow docket relief from the Supreme Court.
It’s still early in the process, but perhaps the situation isn’t as dire as some legal experts worry it may be.
For now, anyone born in the United States remains an American citizen entitled to all the benefits that come with that status, a point reinforced by a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. This remains true, even if a person’s parents were born elsewhere or came here illegally.
I wouldn’t disagree with what the Supreme Court has ruled. The current landscape simply adds layers of difficulty in asserting constitutional rights. It seems Trump might be wavering on his birthright citizenship stance, much like he did with Ukraine.
