Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
A majority of justices on the US Supreme Court appeared sceptical of the Trump administration’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for those born in the country, in oral arguments ahead of one of the most consequential rulings in the court’s history.
All nine justices interrogated US solicitor-general John Sauer, who was arguing for the government, within the first hour of proceedings, which were attended by President Donald Trump.
Conservative and liberal-leaning justices challenged the president’s attempt to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to the US constitution — which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalised in the United States” — to apply only to those whose parents are lawfully in the country.
Donald Trump is believed to be the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the country’s highest court. His presence at the court came just weeks after the justices delivered the biggest blow to his agenda to date, ruling the administration had no authority to use emergency powers to impose tariffs.
Trump has since hit out against those who voted against him in the 6-3 decision, which included two justices he appointed to the bench, claiming they “openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land”.
Wednesday’s arguments centred on an executive order signed by Trump on the first day of his second term, which ordered government agencies not to grant birthright citizenship to children of those who were in the country illegally.
The order argued that the constitution does not apply “universally” to everyone born in the US.
It was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, among other groups, and was last year blocked by lower courts pending the Supreme Court decision.
In a social media post soon after Wednesday’s hearing, which Trump left as it was still under way, he wrote: “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!”
In the opening exchanges on Wednesday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts, called the administration’s argument over the application of the amendment “very quirky” and accused Sauer of using “idiosyncratic examples” to support his position.
Sauer said the limiting of birthright citizenship was necessary to stop “birth tourism”, in which people travel to the US to give birth so that their children are automatically Americans. He cited reports claiming there were “500 birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation”.
Sauer also pointed to the fact that most European countries did not grant birthright citizenship and that their policies had not precipitated a human rights crisis.
Only 32 countries, mostly in the Americas, have similar birthright policies to the US, according to research by the Pew Research Center.
But Cecillia Wang, arguing for the petitioners, said that if the executive order was implemented, “thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship”, and “the citizenship of millions of Americans, past, present and future, could be called into question”.
In her questioning of Sauer, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, seemed concerned that implementing the Trump order would be “messy”, as it would be difficult to establish if parents were in the country illegally.
“You are not going to know at the time of birth, for some people, whether they have the intent to stay or not,” she said.
The Supreme Court is set to hand down a decision before the current term ends in June.
Credit: Source link
