On Thursday, President Donald Trump was visibly thrilled when the Supreme Court decided to hear his controversial birthright citizenship case.
Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, he expressed his happiness, saying, “I am so happy,” and added that the case had been “misunderstood” by many.
The case revolves around Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, a principle that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
This legal concept has been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for over 150 years, and the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on it next month.
A Controversial Push to Redefine Birthright Citizenship
The issue at hand stems from an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office, which sought to alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
His order aimed to deny automatic citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas.
This would significantly change the longstanding understanding of the amendment, which has granted birthright citizenship since it was ratified after the Civil War.
Trump defended his stance by stating, “That’s not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of a sudden there’s citizenship… that is all about slavery,” referring to the historical context of the 14th Amendment.
He suggested that, from his perspective, the case would be “easy to win.”
The 14th Amendment’s History and Interpretation
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, granted citizenship to formerly enslaved Black Americans and their descendants.
The language of the amendment ensures that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically granted citizenship.
In 1898, the Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which solidified the principle of birthright citizenship.
Since then, this broad interpretation has been upheld by the courts.
However, some conservative legal thinkers argue that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” only applies to certain individuals.
They believe that children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally might not meet this criterion and, therefore, should not be entitled to automatic citizenship.
The Trump Administration’s Legal Battle
The Trump administration filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, asking them to lift lower court rulings that blocked the executive order.
The court agreed to hear the case on May 15, though they left the current block on the order in place.
The administration has argued that children born to non-citizen parents, particularly those in the U.S. illegally, should not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore should not automatically become citizens.
This interpretation would radically redefine how the 14th Amendment is applied, and the Trump administration believes this could prevent future generations of non-citizen children from gaining citizenship through birthright.
The Ongoing Legal Battle and Its Consequences
Legal challenges from states, immigrant rights groups, and others have blocked the executive order from taking effect.
These groups argue that the administration is attempting to destabilize a long-standing legal precedent.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration, it could create a complex and confusing legal patchwork where the state in which a child is born determines whether they are granted citizenship.
In their appeal, the Trump administration did not directly ask the Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, but rather on the scope of the lower courts’ rulings.
If the administration’s request is granted, the order could be implemented nationwide, though it would likely remain blocked in the states that have filed lawsuits against it.
What Comes Next for Birthright Citizenship?
The upcoming Supreme Court case will have significant implications for birthright citizenship in the U.S.
If the justices lean in favor of Trump’s interpretation, it could mark a dramatic shift in the nation’s immigration and citizenship policies.
However, given the complexity of the case and the constitutional questions at play, it remains to be seen whether the Court will fully support the administration’s agenda or uphold the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.