Donald Trump’s push to end citizenship in the right of birth is being argued at the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could help advance his immigration program and other questions.
The court hears arguments on Thursday whether the judges of the lower court can block the presidential orders of the country.
Trump has moved to end the citizenship of the birth law in the hours following his return to the White House in January, signing a prescription that said that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants would not be citizens.
Three federal judges prevented him from taking effect, part of a tribunal model blocking the executive orders of Trump. Trump maintains that they did not have the power to issue national injunctions.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump, it could continue its broad use of decrees to make campaign promises without having to wait for the approval of the congress, with limited courts of the courts.
It is unusual for the Supreme Court to hold an audience in May, and there is no indication of its moment. Trump appointed three of the nine judges on the conservative majority court during his first mandate.
Many legal experts say that the president does not have the power to end the citizenship of the right of birth because it is guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the American Constitution. Thus, even if Trump wins the current case, he may still have to fight other legal challenges.
More specifically, the 14th amendment stipulates that “all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens”.
In the executive decree, Trump argued that the expression “its jurisdiction” meant that automatic citizenship was not applied to the children of undocumented immigrants or to the inhabitants of the country temporarily.
The federal judges of Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, delivered injunctions on a national – or universal scale which prevented the order from being applied.
The injunctions, in turn, prompted the Trump administration to argue that the lower courts have exceeded their powers.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” said the government in a March judicial file. “The members of this court have long recognized the need to settle the legality of universal injunctions.”
Earlier this week, an official of the Ministry of Justice told journalists that court’s injunctions “fundamentally thwart” Trump’s ability to carry out his political program and that the administration considers this to be a “direct attack” against the presidency.
The case heard before the Supreme Court stems from three distinct proceedings, both defenders of immigration and 22 American states.
The Trump administration asked the court to rule that the injunctions can only apply to immigrants appointed in the case or to the applicant’s states – which would allow the government to carry out Trump’s order at least in part, even if the legal battles are continuing.
According to the Ministry of Justice.
In a separate case, two lower courts prevented the Trump administration from enforcing a transgender military ban, although the Supreme Court finally intervened and made it possible to enforce the policy.
An end – even partial – of the citizenship of the dawn could have an impact on tens of thousands of children in the United States, with one of the proceedings arguing that this would impose second class status “on a generation of people born and would only have lived in the United States.
Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at the Western Reserve University in Ohio, told BBC that a potential end of citizenship of Birthright could force some of these children to become undocumented or even “stateless”.
“There is no guarantee that the countries from which their parents would bring them back,” he said. “It would not even be clear where the government could expel them.”
