Washington, DC - The Supreme Court judge questioned lawyers representing the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, and those who challenged his efforts to end his birthright citizenship in the country.
Thursday’s hearing was the first time a U.S. court heard a case related to a Trump Jan. 20 order designed to eliminate policies over a century of history that would grant citizenship to nearly all babies born on U.S. land, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
It is not clear when the court will issue a ruling in this case, although the outcome may take weeks. It is unclear whether judges will address the fundamental constitutionality of Trump’s orders, or whether they only rule on narrower questions, namely whether the right to authorize lower federal court judges to block the execution of orders nationwide.
Still, the DC Court Building gathers outside Washington demonstrators and lawmakers say any challenging birthright citizenship will corrupt the U.S. national structure.
CASA Legal Director Ama Frimpong told those gathered in the protest that we are not attacked here because the basic commitments of the United States are under attack.
“All people born in the United States are citizens of the United States,” Frimpong said.
Legal experts also said the ability to ruling to limit federal court orders “state” or “universal” bans to prevent Trump from executing his actions is transformative in itself.
"This question, in a normal sense, will shake the country's legal basis: whether the lower courts have the right to order a national injunction nationwide," Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro said from outside the court.
"But that's the second issue that people really focus on, that is, if Trump has the right to cancel the right to birth citizenship for children born for undocumented immigration and certain visa holders," she said.
“Now, no matter what they want to follow in either direction, they are up to the judge.”
During the two-hour inquiry, lawyers from the Trump administration, as well as lawyers from state and individuals who represent Trump’s orders, addressed issues of grand constitutionality and official law.
Attorney John Sauer first proposed the broad argument of the Trump administration that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 and has since been misinterpreted. Saul believes that the amendment “guarantees citizenship for the children of former slaves, not illegal foreigners or temporary tourists.”
Trump also reiterated his position in the Truth Society post before the hearing, saying that right to birth citizenship makes the United States a "stupid country" and inspires people to visit and have children.
Thor also targeted three federal judges who ruled to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In these cases, the plaintiffs included 22 state attorney generals, immigration rights organizations, and individuals affected by the rule. Saul believes that the judge's decision should only apply to the plaintiffs, not to the entire country.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the narrow questions the judges could not raise a broader constitutional question, saying the president's order violated "my crime, four established Supreme Court precedents."
She said that included the 1898 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which first determined that the 14th Amendment applies to immigration.
Other judges questioned the implications of the court's ruling that judges were unable to issue a "state injunction" in the case without answering potential constitutional questions.
Legal scholars point out that this could cause Trump to end his birthright citizenship and will not apply to states and individuals who have successfully challenged his orders in court. This will mean that if birthright citizenship is at least temporarily - if they do launch their own challenges, it will end in the other 28 states.
"Does everyone affected by this EO (executive order) have to bring their own lawsuit?" Justice Elena Kagan questioned.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument turned the U.S. judicial system into "If you can take the regime, please catch me."
Under this, “Everyone must have a lawyer and file a lawsuit so that the government can stop violating people’s rights”.