Less than three months after President Donald Trump began his attempts to end birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up the first challenge to that effort — in part at least. Technically, the unusual hearing, scheduled for May 15, concerns judges’ injunctions against those attempts. But if Chief Justice John Roberts and the other justices want, next month’s hearing can also be the last hearing on the matter where the outcome is at all in doubt. They must understand that no matter how narrow a ruling they may be asked to provide, it is in their best interest — and the country’s — to reject the White House’s attack on a core principle of our republic swiftly and decisively.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order instructing all federal departments and agencies to no longer recognize all children born in the country as citizens. Documents establishing citizenship would be withheld from any child whose mother was not a citizen, unless their father could be proved to be a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The White House’s justification lies in a misreading of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, falsely claiming that the children being excluded are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus ineligible.
Trump’s order, challenging over a century of jurisprudence, is blatantly illegal to a degree that only someone picking a fight in court can manage.
Trump’s order, challenging over a century of jurisprudence, is blatantly illegal to a degree that only someone picking a fight in court can manage. Several federal courts around the country swiftly recognized that this order threatened its targets with potentially irreparable damage. Within days, district judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts all issued preliminary injunctions against the administration’s plans. One judge referred to the order as “unavailing and untenable”; another correctly noted that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”
Each of those injunctions is nationwide in scope, blocking the White House from moving forward with its plans. Three appeals courts subsequently denied the administration’s attempts to stay the injunctions. When petitioning the Supreme Court last month, Trump’s acting solicitor general insisted that rather than weighing the constitutional questions at hand, the justices need only answer a “‘modest’ request”: whether the administration could continue with its plans against everyone but the individuals named in the cases — or, at most, the states involved in the suits — while awaiting a final decision on the merits.
It should be obvious that allowing an unconstitutional act to continue in some states but not others is both deeply impractical and morally repugnant. Allowing a patchwork of legal conditions to stand is usually anathema to the Supreme Court. My concern is that Roberts may be tempted to join with enough of his colleagues to agree with the administration’s claim that its request is a narrow one.
The court’s record on the early challenges to Trump’s policies has been a mixed bag. “It has ruled for Trump in half of them, although each decision has been nuanced,” NBC News Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley reported last week. “The court has not included any language rebuking the administration for its conduct, although liberal justices have done so in separate opinions.” In threading the needle this way, even in the cases that Trump has lost, the court has sought to put some constraints onto the president while leaving his policies largely in place.
For example, in adjudicating his use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport migrants to El Salvador, the court ruled he had the right to use the 19th-century law while litigation proceeds. But the unsigned majority opinion — the three liberal justices dissented, as did Justice Amy Coney Barrett in part — added a caveat requiring that detainees receive at least some basic due process. “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act,” the majority argued. “The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
There can be no dithering or ambiguity, though, once the oral arguments in the birthright citizenship cases are heard next month.
In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the court unanimously ruled against Trump’s objection to returning the man his administration admitted it had wrongly removed to El Salvador. But the decision was technically a partial win for the administration, which had asked the court to stay a looming lower court deadline to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” Roberts issued a brief pause, during which the deadline lapsed, rendering that part of original order moot. The court denied the request to overturn the rest of the order, agreeing that the U.S. should facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return but remanding the case for clarification on what was meant by “effectuate.”
Both decisions are exactly the kind of pseudo-Solomonic ruling that Roberts loves to issue. Though he would insist otherwise, the chief justice is a skilled politician who always has the court’s public image firmly in mind. The justices have no greater weapon than their institutional authority. Accordingly, issuing an unambiguous order that an unwilling White House fully ignores is likely one of Roberts’ worst nightmares. When viewed through that lens, his attempts to balance a commitment to the rule of law with a lack of enforcement power almost make sense.
There can be no such dithering or ambiguity, though, once the oral arguments in the birthright citizenship cases are heard next month. Even the “modest” proposal from the White House could render thousands of children stateless while the legal process proceeds. The best option available for protecting those newborn Americans’ rights would be to leave the injunctions in place while the lower courts continue to demolish the administration’s nativist crusade. The best option to preserve the legitimacy of the court would be for Roberts to make clear that when the matter returns to the justices, the president’s lawyers will not find sympathetic ears.
