It was one of President Donald Trump’s most ambitious executive orders, and came just hours after he took office in his second term: ending a policy of American birthrights that lasted more than a century.
And just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington stopped the order from coming into effect. In the months that followed, two other federal judges joined in issuing a national injunction.
On Thursday, the issue reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative control bench set to hear oral debate in the case. What the court decides can be transformative.
Advocates have long argued that national fabrics have woven the practice of granting citizenship to all people born in the US soil.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, did not etch words when he called Trump’s order “a reckless and ruthless denial of American values” in January to create “a permanent subclass of American born people born in the United States.”
Meanwhile, the lesser but accidental contingency of the voice empowered by Trump argues that the practice is based on a false constitutional interpretation and serves as an incentive for undocumented migration. The Trump administration calls it “birth tourism.”
Here’s what we’ll expect from Thursday’s hearing:
What time does it start?
The hearing will begin at 9am (14:00 GMT) on site.
What is at risk?
The most basic question that can be answered in a top coat is whether birthright citizenship is permitted to continue.
Advocates point to the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, which states that “all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and their resident states subject to their jurisdiction.”
The subsequent Supreme Court case of 1898, US v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applied to all immigrants, and created the precedent that has since stood.
Several studies estimate that approximately 150,000 immigrant infants are born with citizenship each year.
In contrast, the Trump administration has embraced the theory that babies born from non-citizens are not constitutionally guaranteed citizenship, as they are not “objects of jurisdiction” in the United States.
Speaking to reporters in April, Trump explained the scenario where “tourists enter, touch the sand, and then suddenly they have citizenship.” He accepted the theory that the 14th amendment was intended to apply only to ex-slaves.
At the time, Trump predicted that winning cases would be “easy” based on that logic.
Could the outcome be more complicated?
yes. The Trump administration took a strategically unique tack in the incident.
In filing the emergency with the Supreme Court, they have focused on the actions of three judges who blocked Trump’s order from coming into effect nationwide.
They argue that the order extends beyond judge authorities and that it should only apply to plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly related to Trump’s executive order.
In theory, the Supreme Court can control whether a judge can issue a national injunction without judging whether birthright citizenship is actually protected by the Constitution.
For example, if a judge decides that a lower judge has surpassed their power but has not made a decision on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, the executive order would only be blocked in 22 states that have successfully ordered Trump.
Attorney generals in these states had ruled in February by federal judges in Massachusetts, challenging the order in a joint lawsuit.
Basement citizenship is effectively prohibited unless the order is successfully challenged, or until the Supreme Court issues a future judgment.
Possibility divides legal scholars, and some argue that the Supreme Court is unlikely to make a narrower decision on the scope of power of a subordinate judge without also ruling on the constitutional merits underlying birthright citizenship.
Can an award extend beyond birthright citizenship?
yes. If a judge decides to address only the scope of the power of a subordinate judge, the impact could extend far beyond the question of birthright citizenship.
It also applies to several other Trump executive orders blocked by a federal judge’s national injunction, also known as the “universal injunction.” These include several Trump executive orders that unilaterally attempt to transform the federal government, the military, and to name a few, how funds are paid to the state.
In a written submission of the birthright citizenship case, the Justice Department pointed out a broader meaning, saying “the intervention has become urgent as the universal injunction reached tsunami levels.”
Meanwhile, Maryland plaintiffs said that repealing the state’s injunction with a successful Trump birthright order would create different layers of rights depending on the geographical location of the individual.
“If born in New Jersey, infants are US citizens and full members of society, but if born in Tennessee, they are deportable non-citizens,” they filed in court.