Judges cheer Trump administration lawyer for ending birthright citizenship, including president

Supreme Court justices, when Donald Trump broke record by attending oral arguments, faced the legality of his executive order to limit the birthright of an American citizen, a controversial part of his administration’s approach to immigration.

Justices heard arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked his executive order that ordered US agencies to ignore the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is a US citizen or full-time US citizen.

Some of the justices, conservatives and liberals alike, booed a Justice Department attorney defending Trump’s action, and asked tough questions of the attorney who opposed the plaintiffs challenging the order.

Attorney General John Sauer, representing the administration, opened the debate by saying that “unrestricted citizenship is contrary to the practice of the vast majority of modern nations.” The US – along with Canada – is among the nearly thirty-two countries, almost all of them American, that are considered to have an unconditional birthright, according to a research project of the Global Citizenship Observatory at the Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute.

“It demeans the precious and profound gift of American citizenship,” Sauer said. “It acts as a powerful deterrent to illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only break immigration laws but also jump in the face of law enforcement.”

Trump’s order on the first day of his second term as president resulted in lawsuits from parents and children whose citizenship may be threatened. The executive order, a lower court in New Hampshire found, violated the citizenship language of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as federal law covering citizenship rights.

Trump’s first presidency will be attended by controversies

The administration has said that granting citizenship to almost anyone born on US soil has created incentives for illegal immigration and led to “birth tourism,” where immigrants travel to the United States to give birth and secure their children’s citizenship.

Trump, wearing a red tie and black suit, sits in front of the court’s ornate public gallery after arriving in a motorcade from the White House. He left shortly after Sauer finished his presentation to the US government, and his presence was not publicly acknowledged by the judges.

Trump was the first sitting president to attend an oral argument at the Supreme Court, according to Clare Cushman, a resident historian for the Supreme Court.

Trump in his second term criticized the justices and conservative judges Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, calling them a “disgrace to their families” after the Supreme Court’s recent tax ruling against the administration.

Chief Justice John Roberts, on the other hand, has gone at least twice since last year to rebuke personal attacks on judges, at a time when threats against judges are on the rise.

Groups of protesters gathered outside the courthouse, some holding anti-Trump signs that read “Trump must go now,” “hands off the birthright” and “Don’t let Trump change the Constitution, don’t give him more power.”

‘New world, same constitution’

The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship to children born in the United States, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy power.

The provision in question, known as the Citizenship Clause, states: “All persons born or born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the country in which they reside.”

Roberts told Sauer that his arguments, which would limit who qualifies for citizenship at birth based on the language of the 14th amendment “under its authority,” seemed “bad.”

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War ended slavery in the United States, overturning the infamous Supreme Court decision from a decade earlier that had declared that people of African descent could never become US citizens.

When Sauer suggested times have changed dramatically, with millions more able to reach the US by plane, Roberts replied, “New world, same constitution.”

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, questioned the significance of the Justice Department’s decision to cite foreign laws.

“I guess I don’t see compliance as a legal, constitutional interpretation issue, although I understand it’s a very good point as a policy,” he told Sauer.

The administration argued that the phrase “under its jurisdiction” meant that being born in the United States was not sufficient for citizenship. Citizenship is granted only to the children of those whose “principal allegiance” is to the United States, and that allegiance is established by “lawful residence.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested to Sauer that that would provide a less than straightforward interpretation.

“What if you have someone who lives in Norway with her husband and her family, but is a US citizen, returns home and has her child here and then goes back? How do we know that the child is a US citizen because the parent had no intention of staying?” he said.

The new precedent could have far-reaching implications

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecilia Wang, who argued for the dissent, told the justices that Trump’s order was illegal.

Wang said that there are limited exceptions to this “universal law,” and that interfering with this widely understood view of the Constitution will cause harm.

“The established law of the 14th Amendment, the bright line has contributed to the growth and development of our nation. It comes from the text and history. It is effective and prevents fraud,” said Wang.

With the exception of Justice Samuel Alito, he has not been questioned as widely as Sauer to justify some of his legal arguments.

The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute argued that repealing birthright citizenship would “significantly increase the size” of the US population considered undocumented, while leaving an estimated 255,000 children a year born on US soil without citizenship.

Critics have expressed concern that Trump’s order could pave the way for the administration to pursue more onerous or retroactive restrictions. In another so-called “friend of the court”, a number of municipal and local officials from all over the US argue that this order will create “stateless” children who are subject to discrimination and discrimination, and their access to basic services and health care will be at risk.

Sauer emphasized that Trump’s order would apply “prospectively” and not retroactively. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to the historical events of the US moving to create Native Americans after the court’s decisions. He said that under Sauer’s argument, the next president could try to deprive children born in the US of their citizenship from now on.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion by the end of June.

The court, by a 6-3 majority vote, has upheld Trump’s other major immigration-related policies since he returned to the presidency. It has allowed Trump to temporarily expand deportations of more people while legal challenges play out, such as ending immigration protections or allowing them to be deported to countries where they have no ties.