A story of birth courts at the Supreme Court

Scotus background

This article was updated on February 5 at 1 p.m. 12:50

Shortly after he was sworn into office on January 20 for another period, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that ended Birthright -State Citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to anyone born in the United States. In the future, Trump instructed that people born in the United States are not automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily.

Three days later, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the order. Senior American District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointment, had told a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice during a hearing that Trump’s order was “obviously constitutionally.” The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February 6th.

Wednesday, indicating that the Supreme Court “resounding has rejected the president’s interpretation of the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment”, blocked a federal judge in Maryland Separate Trump administration from enforcing on January 20 -performing order, while a trial brought by immigrants’ Rights groups and more pregnant women are moving forward. (Coughenour’s temporary order is intended to expire Thursday when he wants to hold a hearing on whether to extend the bar.) According to a report from The Hill, the US district judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden, emphasized at the end of A hearing Wednesday that “No court in the country has ever approved the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first. “

More and more challenges for January 20 -Order have been submitted in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and District of Columbia.

Birthright -State Citizenship was explicitly added to the Constitution in 1868, when the 14th amendment was adopted after the civil war. The United States is one of approx. 30 countries, including nearby Canada and Mexico, offering automatic citizenship to anyone born there.

Coughenour concluded that there is a “strong probability” that the challengers in the Seattle case – the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – “will succeed with the benefits of their claims that the executive order violates the fourteenth change” to constitution , that says, as relevant here, that “[a]LL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State where they live. “

Trumps on Trump’s executive order are likely to focus on what it means for someone to be “subject to US jurisdiction”. The 14th change was intended to override one of the Supreme Court’s most notorious decisions, its decision of 1857 in Dred scott v. Sandford. Scott was born the slave in Virginia and was later sold to a army surgeon who brought his slaves to the army postings in parts of the United States where slavery was forbidden. When Scott returned to Missouri, he brought litigation before the federal court and sought freedom for himself and his family. In a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court threw his case. It found that a black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slave persons had no right to any protection from the federal courts because he was not a US citizen.

Four decades later, the Supreme Court gave up that the 14th amendment guarantees US citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The decision came in the event of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco for parents of Chinese descent. When he returned to the United States from a visit to China in 1895, immigration officials would not allow him to enter the country on the grounds that he was not a US citizen.

At a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court agreed with Wong that he was a US citizen. Writing for the majority explained to Justice Horace Gray that although the “main purpose” of the 14th amendment had been to establish citizenship for black people, including previously slaved persons, born in the United States, the amendment applies more broadly and is not limited “by color or race . ” Instead, he wrote, the amendment “confirms the old and basic rule of citizenship at birth within the territory, in fidelity and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”

Historically, there have been only a few exceptions to this general rule, Gray continued – for example, the children of hostile enemies occupying the country, and the children of foreign diplomats as well as (until 1924) some Indians.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissented, along with Justice John Marshall Harlan. In his view, Wong was not a US citizen because he could not be “completely subject to jurisdiction” in the United States: As Chinese citizens, his parents had a duty to the emperor of China and a federal law, the Chinese exceptions Act of 1882 prevented them in becoming American citizens. So while the 14th change may have been intended to establish citizenship for black people in the United States, justified Fuller, it was “not designed to give citizenship” to people like Wong.

“In other words,” Fuller concluded, “the fourteenth change does not exclude from citizenship of birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein and who may become citizens themselves.” But “on the other hand,” Fuller continued that the amendment also does not “will arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of the United States who, according to their original government and government’s will, are and must remain foreigners.”

In 1982, the Supreme Court interpreted a separate but similar clause in the 14th change to have an equally expansive extent. IN Plyler v. DoeThe judges gave up by a vote of 5-4 that a Texas law that prevents undocumented immigrants from going to public school violates a provision in the amendment prohibiting a state to refuse ”to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. “

In a statement by Justice William Brennan, the court rejected the state’s argument that undocumented immigrants were not “persons within its jurisdiction” and therefore not covered by the straight protection clause. The term “within its jurisdiction” “confirms” Brennan explained, “the understanding that the protection of the fourteenth amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger who is Subject to the laws of a state and reach into each corner of a state’s territory. “This includes, Brennan emphasized, people who entered the United States without proper documentation: While in a state, he justified, they are both” subject to the full range of obligations imposed “by state laws and” entitled to Equal protection of the laws that a state can choose to establish. ”

In his map against opposing a preliminary injunction that would prevent Trump administration from enforcing the executive order, lawyers of the Ministry of Justice emphasized that the Supreme Court in Wong’s case “had repeatedly depended on the fact that Wong’s parents were permanent residents In the United States, unlike this, the government claimed, the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors to the United States are not “subject to jurisdiction in the United States” because they have permanent residence and owe “a target For allegiance to, “their” home country of parents. “

This article was originally published on Howe on the field.