The Supreme Court of the United States has delivered a new and highly significant victory to Donald Trump by using one of the most controversial cases since the beginning of this administration, that of citizenship rights for children of undocumented immigrants. The Constitution clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside," but Trump and his team, in the midst of their crusade to deport millions of people, want to change something that has been in effect since the end of the Civil War, when the Fourteenth Amendment was introduced precisely to grant rights to the descendants of slaves.
On his first day, the president signed an executive order to declare this centuries-old practice null and void. More than 20 states, immigrant defense organizations, and organizations supporting pregnant women denounced the case, and within a few days, federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts temporarily blocked the executive order. The case has reached the Supreme Court, which, without delving into the substance of the matter, as the Government cleverly did not request it, has granted a double victory to the Executive, opening a backdoor for it to practically achieve its objectives while at the same time undermining the powers of lower courts to act as a check on Trump's decisions.
"GREAT VICTORY in the United States Supreme Court! Even birthright citizenship fraud has been indirectly dealt a severe blow. [That right] had to do with the babies of slaves (the same year!), not with the SCAM of our immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Attorney General John Sauer, and the entire Department of Justice," Trump celebrated on his social media.
With a decision of 6 in favor and 3 against, reflecting the ideological division between conservatives and the three progressive justices, the Supreme Court has suspended the implementation of Trump's citizenship orders for 30 days. But above all, it implements a significant change in the legal framework by nullifying the power of individual federal judges to issue nationwide or universal injunctions that halt the implementation of a government policy, even if it appears blatantly illegal. This has occurred dozens of times since January 20, when Trump took office.
Injunctions are a controversial legal instrument, as they grant significant power to over 600 judges across the country. They have been questioned in the past, but with Trump, they have reached a new level. For example, during George W. Bush's eight years, there were only six such decisions from a court halting a government decision. But in Trump's first term, there were 64. And now, given that he has opted to bypass Congress and does almost everything through executive orders, similar to a Spanish royal decree (with all its differences), there are about a hundred of them in the courts.
The ruling issued today, the last day of sessions before the summer break, stipulates that when Congress created the lower federal courts in 1789, it did not give district judges the authority to issue nationwide or universal temporary restraining orders that prohibit the implementation of a government policy, even if it seems blatantly illegal. According to the Supreme Court, temporary restraining orders should be granted to specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. Or at most, as conservative Kavanaugh suggests, through a class-action lawsuit "or if a plaintiff requests a judge to invalidate a new rule under the Administrative Procedures Act."
For critics, the Supreme Court's decision institutionalizes illegality and goes against the spirit of the Constitution. Because in matters such as citizenship rights, it means that those without resources and knowledge, not to mention papers to go to court and pay for a lawyer, could see their children deprived of nationality. "No right is safe in the new legal regime created by the Supreme Court. Today, the threat is birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration could try to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain religions from gathering to celebrate their worship," denounces one of the justices in a solo opinion.
In their statement, the majority, through Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that they are not addressing the substance of the issue at this time, that is, whether Trump's attempt to strip automatic citizenship from those born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without a green card is constitutional or not. However, the dissenting minority responds in very harsh terms that the Supreme Court has entered the game knowing full well what it is doing.
"The Government does not request a complete suspension of the judicial mandates, as it usually does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: to obtain such a suspension, the Government would have to demonstrate that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the text of the Constitution, the history, the precedents of this Court, federal law, and the Executive Branch's practice. Therefore, the Government, instead, tries its luck with a different strategy. It asks this Court to declare that, no matter how illegal a law or policy may be, the courts can never simply order the Executive to stop applying it to anyone. Instead, the Government argues that it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone, except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit," denounces progressive Justice Sotomayor.
"The play in this request is evident, and the Government does not try to hide it. However, shamefully, this Court plays along. The majority of this Court has decided that these requests, out of all cases, provide the appropriate opportunity to resolve the issue of universal judicial mandates and end this centuries-old practice once and for all. In its rush to do so, the Court ignores basic principles of fairness, as well as the long history of temporary restraining orders granted to third parties," she states.
In another separate opinion, Justice Jackson agrees with Sotomayor, but also adds that the majority's decision allows the executive branch to violate the Constitution regarding those who have not yet sued, "which poses an existential threat to the rule of law," and asserts that the technical arguments about judicial authority in the 18th century are a smokescreen to give the president the authorization to exercise, at times, the arbitrary and unchecked power that the Founders of the United States sought to eradicate with the Constitution.