Supreme Court appears skeptical of allowing Trump to implement birthright citizenship plan

[Eugene]

Source: NBC News

Supreme Court appears skeptical of allowing Trump to implement birthright citizenship plan

The court is considering whether to allow the proposal to go into effect at least in some parts of the country while litigation continues in lower courts.

May 15, 2025, 5:00 AM EDT / Updated May 15, 2025, 3:37 PM EDT
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices on Thursday expressed concerns about allowing President Donald Trump's radical reinterpretation of the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship to go into effect while litigation continues.

In an unusual move, the court heard oral arguments on a series of Trump administration emergency requests seeking to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions that blocked the plan almost as soon as it was announced in January.

In more than two hours of oral argument, the justices vigorously debated various ways to limit the number of nationwide injunctions, but on the birthright citizenship issue specifically a majority appeared to think such an approach may have been justified, especially in cases brought by states.

Even if the Trump administration loses on its efforts to narrow injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, any decision that sets new limits on such nationwide injunctions could help the administration implement other policies via executive actions, many of which have also been blocked by lower court judges.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/supreme-court-trump-plea-limit-birthright-citizenship-rcna206794

[hildegaard28]

1. Skeptical?

They shouldn't be skeptical of it. They should be absolutely opposed to it based on the Constitution. Especially with the injunctions issue. Limiting nationwide injunctions, especially in this case, would mean unequally applying the law. Some people would have rights in some states, and others would have no rights until the issue is decided. Outrageous.

[Walleye]

2. Agree, it should've been rejected out of hand. I don't know what's wrong with these justices.

They don’t even want to defend the judiciary. That stupid airplane should’ve been rejected out of hand too the correct answer for the US president should’ve been thanks but no thanks.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Part of defending the judiciary is respecting the process.

Trial courts determine the matter initially - based on full factual and legal arguments in an actual case. After that decision, the losing side (or sometimes both if the decisions are split) will appeal. Only after appeal with the Supreme Court review the matter on the merits.

[Walleye]

10. But aren't these cases of trump's fast tracked to SCOTUS

[Ms. Toad]

13. Not on the merits.

Today's hearing was only on the question of nationwide injunctions issued by a federal court. They touched on the merits - because whether an injunction is proper is prospects of success on the merits.

In any normal injunction that is one of the first steps - establishing a likelihood of success on the merits.

And fast-track doesn't mean skipping the trial court. There have already been three nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts on birthright citizenship. So the question of the injunction has already been fully argued at the lower court level. All three injunctions have been reviewed (and upheld) by the Circuit courts. So the question of an injunction is ripe for review by the Supreme Court. Yes, it is moving quickly, but that question (the one before the court today) didn't skip the process.

But, again, no court has yet ruled directly on the merits of the question of birthright citizenship - only on the likelihood of success as a factor in determining an injunction was proper.

[Walleye]

14. Thank you for the clarity, very interesting and that explains it. I can't figure out what they're doing half the time.

[Ms. Toad]

15. The speed is remarkable.

The normal pace of courts is frustrating on matters of this much importance - and even this rapid pace is frustrating and has real (disastrous) consequences for the real people caught up in the middle of these executive orders. But I am impressed with how responsive the courts have been in moving quickly..

[Walleye]

16. Yes, the judiciary is our only hope now since we have no heroes in the Republican Congress

[Ms. Toad]

17. Yup.

The legislative checks and balance is failing.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

19. I hate to suggest it, but I'm afraid there's little chance that either will come to the rescue anytime soon.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

18. According to an HBO documentary The Dark Money Game, a majority of the conservative Supreme Court Justices

have been corrupted by wealthy benefactors who’ve bought and paid for decisions that benefit their interests and goals but fly in the face of logic and common sense.

After some of the ridiculous decisions that have come out of the Supreme Court, I don’t doubt that much if not all the information revealed in the recently released documentary is true.

[Ms. Toad]

24. That has nothing to do with whether following the rules of the justice system is searching for loopholes. n/t

[H2O Man]

4. Absolutely!

They should be afraid for the country when looking at such an attack on the Constitution.

I think it will be a 7 to 2 decision against the felon. Maybe 6 to 3.

[Eugene]

5. This his how appellate courts work. They don't rule on the spot, but they can show they are not persuaded.

[Ms. Toad]

8. But the actual question is not before them.

That is, at this point, a factor is reviewing the injunction - likelihood of success on the merits. So it is helpful to read the tea leaves because eventually there will be an appeal of a lower court decision on the substantive issue is before the court. But that time is not now. Our system starts in the trial court and works its way up to the Supreme Court. There has not yet been a decision in any underlying court as to the legal question of birthright citizenship.

Today's hearing was just about process - can a single federal court issue a nation-wide injunction.

[J_William_Ryan]

3. "They should be absolutely opposed to it based on the Constitution."

Yes but the Court is dominated by conservative ideologues who have demonstrated their contempt for settled, accepted precedent and the Constitution.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

20. So very true. It's a damn shame too!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. I heard most the oral argument and that is my impression also

[Karadeniz]

7. I get so tired of SCOTUS searching for loopholes instead of the broader

Picture. It's in the constitution. The president doesn't have the authority to evade the constitution. Case closed.

[Walleye]

11. I wish they would consider the ramifications a decision like this

[Ms. Toad]

12. Respecting the structure and process of our court system is not "searching for loopholes"

it is part of what gives judicial decisions the integrity they deserve.

Any appellate court (including the Supreme Court) is not set up as a trial court - with an actual legal case in front of it, evidence and law agued by (theoretically) equal and opposing counsel. Appellate courts are limited to ruling on the record - which must be developed at the trial level. Because it is the trial level which deals with actual people, sees witnesses and evidence directly, and can evaluate the integrity of the evidence and witnesses directly. Appellate courts rule on the record - primarily on matters of law. On matters of fact, they defer to the lower courts.

And, not only do they defer to lower courts on matters of fact, the fact that the legal arguments pro and con have been fully fleshed out by opposing counsel assists them in evaluating the legal merits of the case - pro and con.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

22. Sorry, but I've seen too many SCOTUS decisions that lack any integrity. I used to respect SCOTUS, but

I can’t anymore. Someone recently said, that even tho SCOTUS is the highest court in America and is revered as an ethical body — in the end, it’s simply made up of 9 humans who are just as susceptible to flattery, corruption, and bribery as any other.

[Jmb 4 Harris-Walz]

21. He's been evading it so far and doing a smashing job of it too!

[Emile]

23. The next president through EO could order assault rifles illegal.