WASHINGTON (CNN): President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court in a series of emergency appeals Thursday to allow him to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, elevating a fringe legal theory that several lower courts have resoundingly rejected.
In a series of emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had gone too far in handing down nationwide injunctions blocking the controversial policy, and it asked the justices to limit the impact of those orders.
Appeals courts have brushed aside the Trump administration’s request to pause lower court rulings that imposed nationwide injunctions on an executive order he signed on the first day of his second term.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” the Justice Department told the Supreme Court in its emergency appeals. “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”
For more than 150 years, courts have understood the 14th Amendment’s text to guarantee citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of the immigration status of their parents. A landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898 affirmed that reading of the law, and the modern court hasn’t signaled any desire to revisit that holding.
But some conservatives have argued that those long-held views are wrong because the 14th Amendment includes a phrase that the benefit applies only to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Immigrants in the country illegally, the theory goes, are subject to the jurisdiction of their native homeland.
