The United States Supreme Court granted a significant victory to President Donald Trump on Friday by allowing his controversial plan to move forward, which aims to eliminate the right to automatic citizenship by birth on U.S. soil.
In a divided decision of 6 votes in favor and 3 against, the highest judicial authority limited the scope of the court orders that blocked Trump's plan, allowing the restrictions on birthright citizenship to begin to be implemented, at least partially, in those states that were not part of the lawsuits against him.
The ruling represents a significant turning point, as it weakens the nationwide precautionary measures that have so far prevented the implementation of the plan across the country.
Although it does not directly address the legality or constitutionality of eliminating birthright citizenship, the decision paves the way for the Executive to move forward with its implementation in certain areas.
“A HUGE VICTORY in the Supreme Court of the United States!” Trump celebrated on his Truth Social platform minutes after the ruling was announced.
Later, in statements to the press from the White House, he described the decision as "wonderful" and stated that it represents "a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law."
For more than a century, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted as guaranteeing automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
However, the Trump administration argues that this interpretation has been misused and seeks to restrict the right, particularly for children of undocumented immigrants.
The Supreme Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the plan, but by limiting the court orders that were holding it back, it allows the Executive to proceed with the administrative aspects to define how the new policy would be implemented.
The conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that courts must operate within their limits and must not exceed their power, even when they believe that the Executive has acted illegally.
"Cautionary measures should be restricted only to the individuals, groups, or states that filed the lawsuit," Barrett explained.
For her part, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a strong dissent read from the bench, described the decision as "a tragedy for the rule of law" and an "open invitation to circumvent the Constitution."
Additionally, he warned that the decision weakens the courts' ability to impose nationwide bans and urged opponents to resort to class action lawsuits as a legal alternative.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, also in dissent, warned that the ruling represents "an existential threat to the rule of law" and undermines judicial oversight over executive decisions.
Despite this setback for opponents of the plan, birthright citizenship remains protected in some states, such as New Hampshire, due to parallel lawsuits that were not considered in the case analyzed by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs' lawyers promised to continue fighting the measure, which they consider unconstitutional and discriminatory, while they prepare new legal strategies.
Trump, meanwhile, has made it clear that he will continue to push forward with his goal of restricting automatic citizenship, one of his most controversial electoral promises and one that has a significant impact on the country's immigration policy.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the U.S.
What does the Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship mean?
The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to move forward with his plan to eliminate birthright citizenship partially, limiting the court orders that were blocking its implementation in certain states. This does not resolve the constitutionality of the plan but permits the Executive to start imposing restrictions in those states that did not participate in lawsuits against it.
How does this affect the children of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.?
In the states where Trump's plan may advance, the children of undocumented immigrants could lose their automatic right to citizenship by birth. However, in states like New Hampshire, where there are parallel lawsuits, birthright citizenship remains protected.
What arguments has the Trump administration used to justify this measure?
The Trump administration argues that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship by birth, has been abused. Trump maintains that this policy encourages undocumented immigration and seeks to restrict it, particularly in the case of children of undocumented immigrants.
What are the legal and constitutional implications of this decision?
Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of Trump's plan, the decision to allow its progress in some states undermines nationwide injunctions. This could set a precedent that limits the ability of courts to block nationwide decisions by the Executive that they deem illegal.
Filed under:
