Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright
citizenship restrictions
[March 14, 2025]
By MARK SHERMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court
to allow restrictions on birthright citizenship to partly take effect
while legal fights play out.
In emergency applications filed at the high court on Thursday, the
administration asked the justices to narrow court orders entered by
district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that blocked
the order President Donald Trump signed shortly after beginning his
second term.
The order currently is blocked nationwide. Three federal appeals courts
have rejected the administration's pleas, including one in Massachusetts
on Tuesday.
The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose
parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from
issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing
citizenship for such children.
Roughly two dozen states, as well as several individuals and groups,
have sued over the executive order, which they say violates the
Constitution’s 14th Amendment promise of citizenship to anyone born
inside the United States.
The Justice Department argues that individual judges lack the power to
give nationwide effect to their rulings.
The administration instead wants the justices to allow the Trump’s plan
to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and group
that sued, arguing that the states lack the legal right, or standing, to
challenge the executive order.
As a fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to
make public announcements about how they plan to carry out the policy if
it eventually is allowed to take effect.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris contends in her filing that
Trump's order is constitutional because the 14th amendment's citizenship
clause, properly read, “does not extend citizenship universally to
everyone born in the United States.”
[to top of second column]
|
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen near sunset in Washington, Oct.
18, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
But the emergency appeal is not directly focused on the validity of
the order. Instead, it raises an issue that has previously drawn
criticism from some members of the court, the broad reach of orders
issued by individual federal judges.
In all, five conservative justices, a majority of the court, have
raised concerns in the past about nationwide, or universal,
injunctions.
But the court has never ruled on the matter.
The administration made a similar argument in Trump's first term,
including in the Supreme Court fight over his ban on travel to the
U.S. from several Muslim majority countries.
The court eventually upheld Trump's policy, but did not take up the
issue of nationwide injunctions.
The problem has only gotten worse, Harris told the court on
Thursday. Courts issued 15 orders blocking administration actions
nationwide in February alone, compared to 14 such orders in the
first three years of President Joe Biden's term, she wrote.
The heightened pace of activity also reflects how quickly Trump has
moved, less than two months in office, to fire thousands of federal
workers, upend tens of billions of dollars in foreign and domestic
aid, roll back the rights of transgender people and restrict
birthright citizenship.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
