Supreme Court lifts blocks against Trump birthright citizenship order
A 6-3 Supreme Court decision lifts blocks against President Trump’s order to deny citizenship to babies of undocumented immigrants and visa holders.
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court’s reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities.
The court’s June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump’s plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents.
The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts.
Among those suing to stop Trump’s plan is “Liza,” a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child’s birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland.
Liza’s baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit’s of Trump’s plan. Liza said she was “sick with worry” that the courts would rule before her baby was born.
“Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby’s citizenship,” she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling.
“I’m sad about what today’s decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children’s future,” she said.
SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship changes nothing immediately
In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court’s decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately.
“It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right,” said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. “I don’t see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear.”
Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld.
But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court’s decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president’s plan over the next month.
“Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day,” said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. “It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them.”
What does ending birthright citizenship mean
Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency.
Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president’s plan.
If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump’s order could create “stateless” people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits.
“We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President’s approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,” Platkin said on X. “We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts.”
Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe.
Trump has promised to deport 1 million people annually, and ending birthright citizenship would make it easier for federal officials to remove entire families. Historically, parents of U.S. citizen babies have often been allowed to remain in the country even if they entered illegally themselves.
Panic and uncertainty among migrants
Nivida, a mother of three who came to the United States in 2019 to escape persecution by a criminal gang in her native Honduras, told USA TODAY that the court ruling has created panic among her family and friends.
“I’m very sad and I’m feeling very anxious at the same time,” said Nivida, who lives in Louisiana with her three young children and was identified only by her first name in the court filings.
She said she is protected from the order because she is one of the unidentified asylum-seeking plaintiffs in the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project lawsuit that made it to the nation’s highest court.
“I might not be affected personally,” she said through a translator, “but I do have a lot of people that are around me that are going to be affected.”
One of Nivida’s best friends, she said, is five months pregnant and is not protected by an asylum claim covered by the ruling.
“She’s very worried, because she’s not sure what is going to happen to her baby when they are born and what kind of identity they’re going to have because of the decision that the Supreme Court took today,” Nivida said.
“It’s very disappointing, and it’s very sad. This has been something that has been in the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, for 150 years,” she said. “And this kind of executive order is a law that I’ve only ever seen in other countries where there is corruption. And I thought that this country was different. I have thought that there would be a respect for laws and the U.S. Constitution here.”
