Supreme Court hears oral debate on citizenship with right to birth

The Supreme Court heard debate on Thursday about the Trump administration’s attack on citizenship of the right to birth, a constitutional right of any child born on U.S. land. If things are good for Trump, the ruling could reshape the justice system. It is not a requirement for judges to rule directly over the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment, but rather based on the ability of the following federal court to prevent the president from executing orders – whether they are constitutional or not.

The case focused on the challenge, with two immigration rights groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) posed a challenge to the government after Donald Trump’s January executive order attempting to end reproductive citizenship. The order was blocked by multiple federal courts, and the government argued in the Supreme Court that these lower courts do not have the authority to issue a “universal injunction” to prevent the executive branch from issuing instructions.

While the Justice appears to be questioning Trump’s efforts to completely ban citizenship of the right to birth, some more conservative justices in the court seem willing to limit power over lower courts and must block the president’s agenda. It would be a marching approach for the conservative-controlled Supreme Court to allow the Trump administration to interfere with its platform. On the other hand, this will cause a potential death blow to the judiciary’s power as a check and balance for other branches of the government.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summed up the government's position in a fierce exchange with American lawyer John Sauer. Free Justice says: “If you can look at it from the executive’s perspective, your argument turns our judicial system into my bondage.

Saul argues on behalf of the government that groups seeking a national ban against a presidential directive or order could file a class action lawsuit in search of relief for the government.

“For this, let's assume that your mistake in the case is wrong and that the government will not allow this to do so under the Constitution,” Jackson replied. “In my opinion, your argument says we must continue to do this until all those who may be hurt by it figure out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc. I don't understand how far from the rule of law.”

Sauer once mentioned the ancient English school court, which was forbidden to escalate the British king during its existence. Jackson took a comparison. “The fact that the court cannot prohibit the king among the British principals is not something similar or a fact that shows our system,” she said. “The executives should be bound by the law and the court has the right to say what the law is. The court can say, 'This kind of behavior is illegal and you have to stop doing it.'”

The conservatives of the court seem to be more suitable for the government's arguments about the power of the lower courts. Judge Clarence Thomas once said that the United States “had been alive until the 1960s without a universal ban.” “It's very susceptible to occupational illness. It's my bright illness and I can do whatever I want,” said Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most conservative and Trump-aligned members of the court, in questioning the District Court and other Article 3 judges.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be open to Sauer's argument that class action may be the appropriate way for Americans to challenge the order. “Why doesn't this solve the problem?” Kavanaugh asked. Judge Neil Gorsuch is also interested in class action as a potential solution.

Kavanaugh seems more skeptical to push for the end of birthright citizenship, questioning Sauer how the Trump administration will implement legal changes. “The second day after it comes into effect. It's just a very practical question. How will it work. What does the hospital do for newborns?” Kavanaugh asked.

Thor gave the roundabout answer, first claiming that federal officials would not “accept documents that mistakenly designated citizenship” at all, then those same federal officials would just need to “solve this” or potentially make parents present their immigration documents after birth.

Kavanaugh interjected and asked the government how it planned to enforce the law. Thrall finally admits: “We don't know.”

Liberal Judge Sonya Sotomayor pointed out that the executive order to abolish citizenship of reproductive rights “violates the precedent of the four Supreme Courts.” Regarding the administration’s argument, Sotomayor said the Trump administration’s expectation limits on judge’s power meant that “both the Supreme Court and no lower court can prevent executives from violating established laws and precedents. At another moment, freedom judge Elena Kagan summed up many of the views expressed by liberals during the hearing. “If I were wearing your shoes, I wouldn’t be able to resolve the Supreme Court in this case.” ”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has sparked outrage over Trump’s decision to use the Alien Enemy Act to deport immigrants, and he could be a major vote. She seemed incredible when Thor told her directly that it was the Justice Department’s ruling on “general (…) but not necessarily” respect for the lower court.

“You will respect opinions and The Supreme Court’s judgment, you mean you will respect the judgment, but not necessarily the opinion of the lower court? ” she asked.

“Our practice is also respecting opinions on the tour in the vast majority of cases, but my understanding is that this is not an absolute practice of respecting precedents and Supreme Court decisions,” he said.

The Supreme Court may not issue a final ruling on the case for some time, but it is not surprising if the court's conservative majority reviewed Trump's abuse of the country's top position after last year approved the president's immunity to barely file a lawsuit.