It was the most ambitious executive order of U.S. President Donald Trump, just hours after his second term: ending the decades-long U.S. birthright citizenship policy.
Just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington state prevented the decree from taking effect. In the following months, two other federal judges participated in the national ban.
The issue will arrive at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, with a 6-3 conservative leader hearing the oral debate on the case. What the court decides is transformational.
Supporters have long believed that the practice of granting citizenship to all people on American soil has been woven into a national structure.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had no sarcasm in January, when he called Trump's order a "reckless and ruthless negation of American values" destined to create a "permanent subclass of people born in the United States who have been deprived of all Americans' rights."
Meanwhile, the smaller but voiced contingency authorized by Trump insists that this approach is based on a mistake in constitutional interpretation and an incentive for undocumented immigration. The Trump administration calls it "birth travel."
Here is what you can expect at the hearing on Thursday:
The hearing begins at 9 a.m. local (14:00 GMT).
The most fundamental question that top courts can answer is whether to allow birthright citizenship to continue.
Supporters pointed to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1868: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and bound by their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the country in which they reside."
The subsequent Supreme Court case of 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applicable to all immigrants, thus creating a precedent since then.
Some studies estimate that under the policy, approximately 150,000 immigrant babies are born each year.
By contrast, the Trump administration accepted the theory that non-citizen-born babies are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore constitutionally guaranteed citizenship is not.
Speaking to reporters in April, Trump described a kind of “a tourist coming in and touching a piece of sand and then suddenly, citizenship.” He accepted the theory that the 14th Amendment only applies to former slaves, not new immigrants
At the time, Trump predicted that according to that logic, winning a case would be "easy".
Yes. The Trump administration has adopted a strategic and unique strategy in this case.
In an emergency application filed with the Supreme Court, they focused on the actions of three judges who prevented Trump's order from taking effect nationwide.
They believe that the scope of these orders is beyond the judge's authority and should only apply to plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly related to Trump's executive order.
In theory, the Supreme Court could rule whether a judge could issue an injunction nationwide without ruling whether a right-of-birth citizenship is constitutionally protected.
For example, if the justices ruled that lower judges exceeded their powers but did not decide on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, an executive order would only be blocked in the 22 states that successfully challenged Trump’s orders.
Attorneys general of these states challenged the order in a joint lawsuit, and a federal judge in Massachusetts was in their favor in February.
Unless they also successfully challenge the order, birthright citizenship will be effectively prohibited from being banned in 28 other states.
This possibility divides legal scholars, and some believe that the Supreme Court is unlikely to make a narrower decision on the scope of power of lower judges without ruling the fundamental constitutional merits of citizenship with the right to birth.
Yes. If the Supreme Court does decide to address only the scope of the powers of lower-level judges, the impact may go far beyond the question of birthright citizenship.
It also applies to several other Trump execution orders blocked by a federal judge's state ban, also known as the "universal ban." These include some Trump’s execution orders that attempt to unilaterally change the federal government, the military and how to spend money, to name just a few.
In written applications in a case of birthright citizenship, the Justice Department pointed out the broader implications, saying the need for the Supreme Court is “an urgent intervention with the general injunction reaching the tsunami level.”
Meanwhile, in the Maryland case, the plaintiff successfully challenged Trump's right to birth order, saying that lifting the state ban would create different rights based on the individual's geographical location.
"If born in New Jersey, the baby will be a U.S. citizen and a formal member of society, but if born in Tennessee, it will be a deportable non-citizen."