By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, focusing on injunctions against his executive order. This order, based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen mothers. Several lower courts swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, which the administration unsuccessfully attempted to overturn. The Court must decisively reject the administration’s arguments to uphold birthright citizenship and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Read the original article here
John Roberts can’t, and shouldn’t, attempt to split the difference on the issue of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on Trump’s attempt to circumvent the 14th Amendment demands a decisive ruling, leaving no room for ambiguous interpretations or compromises. This isn’t a matter of political maneuvering; it’s a fundamental question about the integrity of the Constitution itself.
The very foundation of this case hinges on the precise definition of jurisdiction. The argument presented attempts to redefine a concept that is typically uncontested, blurring the lines between who is subject to US law and who isn’t. Such a redefinition would have far-reaching and potentially disastrous consequences, granting the executive branch unchecked power to determine who is, and is not, subject to the nation’s legal framework.
Trump’s aim, thinly veiled as a legal argument, is to secure the power to selectively decide who falls outside the purview of US jurisdiction. This isn’t about diplomatic immunity; it’s about creating a mechanism to deport individuals without due process or judicial oversight. The specific cases involving El Salvador illustrate the far-reaching implications of this power grab: a potential ability to deport people at will, choosing their destination without any accountability.
The legal arguments presented are manufactured constructs, not sound legal reasoning, built on reinterpreting established definitions to expand executive authority. The claim that “enemy aliens” exist within the US today is simply false; there is no nation currently at war with the United States. This fabricated legal theory aims to eliminate the judiciary’s role in immigration processes; if the courts lack jurisdiction, there’s no judicial recourse.
While concerns about the Supreme Court’s overall record are valid, this case presents an opportunity for a necessary correction. The Court’s decision to even hear this case may, in fact, signal an intention to prevent the erosion of Article III and the judiciary’s authority. A strong, unified ruling against Trump’s attempt to redefine fundamental legal concepts is not only warranted but crucial to maintaining the rule of law. Congress possesses the power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to counteract any attempts to subvert its provisions through appropriate legislation. However, given the current political climate, relying solely on Congress to rectify this situation seems unreliable.
The 14th Amendment, specifically Section 1, is clear: all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This principle was unequivocally upheld in *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* (1898), a precedent that has stood the test of time. Any attempt to reinterpret or circumvent this established legal principle represents a direct attack on the foundational principles of American citizenship.
Arguments suggesting that birthright citizenship should be altered through personal opinion or legislative action are valid points of discussion, but they are irrelevant to the present context. The issue before the Court is not whether birthright citizenship is a desirable policy; it is whether the executive branch can unilaterally redefine the law to circumvent a clearly established constitutional provision. The path for change lies in the amendment process, not through executive fiat.
Chief Justice Roberts has faced criticism for past decisions, and his track record shows a tendency towards corporatism. Yet, in this instance, there is no room for compromise or a ‘split the difference’ approach. A ruling in favor of Trump would dismantle the established legal order and severely damage the integrity of the Constitution. The Court’s decision will reflect whether the rule of law or executive overreach prevails.
The clarity of the 14th Amendment makes this case a “slam dunk.” Any attempt to equivocate represents a betrayal of judicial responsibility. The consequences of a decision supporting Trump’s arguments are too significant to ignore; it would effectively permit the dismantling of constitutional protections at the whim of the executive branch. A 7-2 ruling against Trump, clearly citing the 14th Amendment, is not only expected but absolutely necessary. Anything less would signify a profound failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution. The court’s response will test whether the principle of birthright citizenship will survive, or if it will be eroded through legal maneuvering and a disregard for established law.