The United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship is unlawful.
In one of the most consequential decisions for the top court, which had waited until the final day of the term, the justices ruled 6-3 to preserve the right to U.S. citizenship for nearly everyone born on American soil.
Trump issued the order last year on the first day of his second term in office, part of a series of policies aimed at cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration.
The justices had already expressed skepticism during oral arguments in April, which Trump attended in person, a highly unusual move for a sitting US president.
The order directed governing agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or a “green card” holder, a legal permanent resident.
Critics had argued that the order violates the 14th Amendment, which is supposed to grant automatic citizenship to people born in the territory of the United States.
In its decision, the Court upheld the broad concept of birthright citizenship.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have the right … to participate in our political community. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free man in this country.'”
“We keep that promise today,” he said.
US birthright citizenship: 14th amendment
The provision in question, known as the Citizenship Clause, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
However, the Trump administration claims that merely being born in the United States is not enough to make a person “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore a citizen.
The administration argues that such people would include children of immigrants who are in the country illegally or whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or on work visas.
Solicitor General D. John Sawyer, a Trump administration attorney, argued that birthright citizenship “trivializes the precious and profound gift of American citizenship” and “rewards illegal aliens who not only violate immigration laws but also jump ship before those who follow the rules.”
Opponents have accused President Trump of racial and religious discrimination in his approach to immigration and several lower courts, including one in New Hampshire, have blocked the executive order, which Trump is now challenging.
“It is one of the clearest statements of who we are as a country,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement. “No matter who your parents are, if you’re born here, you belong here.”
How do most countries determine a child’s citizenship?
Most countries, especially outside the US, follow the legal principle jus sanguinisor “right of blood”, whereby a child’s citizenship is inherited from his or her parents, regardless of place of birth.
For example, in the European Union, no member state grants automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born to foreigners.
However, American legal practice derives in many ways from English common law, which had long provided citizenship based on the legal concept jus soliOr “right to the soil.”
However, in the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act of 1981 was abolished jus soli And people born in Britain now only get citizenship if at least one parent is a British citizen or has “settled status” under the law.
Supreme Court rules on campaign spending, transgender sports
Before the ruling on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court had also found in favor of Republican appeals against campaign spending limits and upheld state laws banning transgender girls and women from school sports teams.
Sided with Vice President J.D. Vance and other Republican plaintiffs, the court ruled 6-3 that limits on the amount of money parties can spend on election campaigns violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
The decision comes ahead of the midterm elections in November in which Republicans will have a significant cash advantage over Democrats.
according to reuters News Agency, the three major Republican committees – the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee – had $256 million in the bank and no debt as of May.
That was more than double the roughly $126 million held by their Democratic counterparts, who also have more than $18 million in debt.
The court’s conservative majority also ruled that state laws banning transgender girls and women from school athletic teams in Idaho and West Virginia do not violate the Constitution or federal laws prohibiting gender discrimination in education.
The decision, which follows other such rulings against transgender Americans in the past year, represents another blow to the LGBTQ+ community.
“Today’s news has nothing to do with security or fairness in sports,” James Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, argued in a statement.
“These decisions only serve to send a message to transgender and non-binary youth that says: ‘You don’t belong.'”
Edited by: Wesley Rahn