The U.S. Supreme Court ruling argues fear that many non-citizen parents’ babies may be treated differently depending on the state in which they were born.
Justice did not control the constitutionality of Trump’s restrictions. However, in a decision split on Friday, they suspended a nationwide injunction in three cases that blocked the policy from taking effect.
It paves the potential pathway for Trump to ban birthrights enacted in 28 states where there is no court order to block it. Many of them are Republicans from Texas to Florida to Wyoming, from Texas to Oklahoma.
State officials and legal experts warn that the arrangement could lead to the resulting patchwork quilt. In this case, children of American people are recognized as citizens of some states on illegal or temporary visas, but not in others.
“What we have is an inviable mess that puts thousands of babies in lawful terms that are unacceptable,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. “Do babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than babies born in Texas or Florida?”
Nothing will change anytime soon – the judiciary said Trump restrictions will not be in effect for 30 days. Many will be in fluidity during that period as lower courts revise their decisions and match the new precedent set by the High Court.
The judge also left the way for the enemy to continue trying to block Trump’s orders through class actions. And they left an important, unanswered question about the scope of relief that certain challengers, especially individual states, are entitled to receive.
Trump celebrated Friday’s ruling as a “monologic victory.” His administration has long been trying to limit the ability of a single judge to block federal policies across the country.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Democracy Advocates Fund, and CASA Inc. have appealed to block orders relating to birthright citizenship. They have already sought a new court order, revising the lawsuit as a class action to adjust their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, and seeking new court orders to block Trump’s policies while the lawsuit is ongoing.
“All courts that have seen this cruel order agree that it is unconstitutional,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigration rights project and lead lawyer in this case, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court decision has not been proposed in a different way remotely and is fighting to ensure that President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship of one child.”
The lawsuit will also continue with cases filed by 22 democratically-led states sued to block the order. These states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost stressed legal uncertainty and said the scope of relief available to the states that they sued to avoid violations from the Supreme Court must be determined.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” she said.
Some state attorney generals said the language of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion opens up the possibility that the state can still assert national order well.
“The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those who the Attorney General in the country had the courage to stand up to this President’s anti-democratic agenda,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “We hope that the court will find a patchwork of injunctive orders is ineffective.”
