The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow a ban on birthright citizenship in about half of the country for children born to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.
Judges in lawsuits joined by 22 states and D.C. have issued nationwide orders blocking Trump’s executive action, which civil rights groups and Democratic-led states say is at odds with the nation’s history and the Constitution. The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in the White House, denies automatic citizenship for new babies if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident — a population some studies have estimated at more than 150,000 newborns per year.
In its request to the Supreme Court, the administration asked the justices to limit the nationwide orders to the individuals or states involved in the litigation while those cases make their way through the court system, or to at least allow the relevant federal agencies to begin developing plans and issuing public guidance for banning birthright citizenship if Trump’s effort eventually passes legal muster.
Advertisement
Nationwide court orders “prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country … [and] compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” acting solicitor general Sarah M. Harris told the justices.
If the Trump administration were successful in persuading the Supreme Court to limit the injunctions to states participating in the litigation, it could allow the administration to begin denying automatic citizenship to the children born in 28 states and other U.S. territories.
Follow Trump’s first 100 Days
Such a scenario would be unmanageable, said Amanda Frost, an immigration law professor at the University of Virginia who has written extensively about the legal questions around nationwide injunctions. Migrants might feel compelled to travel between states to give birth, she said, and parents or interest groups could file hundreds or thousands of legal challenges on behalf of children not covered by the existing orders.
“It would create chaos to have inconsistent rules and overwhelm the courts — it’s not administrable,” Frost said.
The administration’s filing noted that nationwide injunctions have halted many of Trump’s efforts to dramatically shrink the size of the federal workforce, halt spending and dismantle agencies. Judges issued more orders blocking Trump’s executive actions in February, the filing said, than through the first three years of the Biden administration — a data point probably related to the volume of Trump’s directives and the fact that many seek to dramatically change the way government works.
Advertisement
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris said. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.”
Presidents from both parties — and several Supreme Court justices — have raised concerns about the power of a single judge to block an administration’s initiative nationwide. During President Joe Biden’s tenure, judges halted his administration’s mask mandate for air travelers, his student loan forgiveness plan and a coronavirus vaccine mandate for certain workers.
Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship, is facing eight separate lawsuits across the country. In addition to the three nationwide injunctions, in cases in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, a federal judge in a New Hampshire issued an injunction in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, though the scope of that injunction is uncertain. A court hearing in that lawsuit is scheduled for Friday.
s
Judges in lawsuits joined by 22 states and D.C. have issued nationwide orders blocking Trump’s executive action, which civil rights groups and Democratic-led states say is at odds with the nation’s history and the Constitution. The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in the White House, denies automatic citizenship for new babies if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident — a population some studies have estimated at more than 150,000 newborns per year.
In its request to the Supreme Court, the administration asked the justices to limit the nationwide orders to the individuals or states involved in the litigation while those cases make their way through the court system, or to at least allow the relevant federal agencies to begin developing plans and issuing public guidance for banning birthright citizenship if Trump’s effort eventually passes legal muster.
Advertisement
Nationwide court orders “prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country … [and] compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” acting solicitor general Sarah M. Harris told the justices.
If the Trump administration were successful in persuading the Supreme Court to limit the injunctions to states participating in the litigation, it could allow the administration to begin denying automatic citizenship to the children born in 28 states and other U.S. territories.
Follow Trump’s first 100 Days
Such a scenario would be unmanageable, said Amanda Frost, an immigration law professor at the University of Virginia who has written extensively about the legal questions around nationwide injunctions. Migrants might feel compelled to travel between states to give birth, she said, and parents or interest groups could file hundreds or thousands of legal challenges on behalf of children not covered by the existing orders.
“It would create chaos to have inconsistent rules and overwhelm the courts — it’s not administrable,” Frost said.
The administration’s filing noted that nationwide injunctions have halted many of Trump’s efforts to dramatically shrink the size of the federal workforce, halt spending and dismantle agencies. Judges issued more orders blocking Trump’s executive actions in February, the filing said, than through the first three years of the Biden administration — a data point probably related to the volume of Trump’s directives and the fact that many seek to dramatically change the way government works.
Advertisement
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris said. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.”
Presidents from both parties — and several Supreme Court justices — have raised concerns about the power of a single judge to block an administration’s initiative nationwide. During President Joe Biden’s tenure, judges halted his administration’s mask mandate for air travelers, his student loan forgiveness plan and a coronavirus vaccine mandate for certain workers.
Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship, is facing eight separate lawsuits across the country. In addition to the three nationwide injunctions, in cases in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, a federal judge in a New Hampshire issued an injunction in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, though the scope of that injunction is uncertain. A court hearing in that lawsuit is scheduled for Friday.
s
