The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding the federal government’s bid to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order. This order seeks to end birthright citizenship, a policy enshrined in the 14th Amendment that has granted citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil since the post-Civil War era.
The proceedings follow an injunction upheld by three federal judges, which currently prevents the enforcement of the executive order nationwide. The injunctions remain effective until the Supreme Court can evaluate the Trump administration’s argument during the upcoming hearings (official court orders).
This development brings back into focus the 14th Amendment’s origins, including its purpose to counteract the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied citizenship rights to African Americans. Historical precedents, such as the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, have strongly supported birthright citizenship, reinforcing it as a fundamental principle of U.S. law.
The Trump administration argues that the injunctions issued against this order exceed the constitutional powers of the courts and hinder the Executive Branch’s functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris described the administration’s petition to the Supreme Court as a “modest request,” advocating for the executive order to be enforced, except concerning specific parties involved in ongoing litigation.
In contrast, challengers to the executive order, including Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell and representatives from New Jersey and 17 other states, argue that maintaining current legal interpretations does not constitute an emergency necessitating a stay. Their contention focuses on the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which they assert the executive order disrupts without merit (read more).
The May 15 hearing is likely to be protracted despite its one-hour allotment, with a decision expected by late June or early July. This case will critically assess both the executive’s authority to direct citizenship policy by executive order and the judiciary’s role in providing checks thereon.