US Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the long-established right to automatic US citizenship for children born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In doing so, the Court rejected President Trump’s most aggressive effort to limit immigration to the United States.
Writing for the majority of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts traced birthright citizenship back to the nation’s founding. Just as colonists demanded “the rights of Englishmen” more than 250 years ago, he said, Congress amended the Constitution after the Civil War to specify automatic citizenship for any child born on American soil.
“Citizenship then and now was a right to have rights” – and the framers of the 14th Amendment extended this promise to every free man born in this land. He concluded: “We keep that promise today.”
The vote was 6 to 3, depending on how you count it. In all, five justices signed Roberts’ majority opinion. The sixth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed only that a federal law enacted in the 1950s provides automatic citizenship for children born in the US.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the lead dissent, a 91-page opus that agreed with Trump’s claim that the 14th Amendment applies only to former slaves and their descendants. Thomas’s dissent ominously added that he was “not sure whether today’s opinion will stand the test of time.” The dissent also included Justice Neil Gorsuch, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate dissent.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who like Thomas is African American, responded to some of the themes of Thomas’s dissent.
“Despite his longtime support of a color-blind society,” he wrote, “Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure relating only to freed slaves.”
ACLU legal director Cecilia Wang, who successfully argued the case at the Supreme Court, said President Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to limit birthright citizenship was transparent.
He said, “The majority of the court saw that the President was trying to present birthright citizenship as something that could be flexible and retracted and expanded depending on what the administration in power thinks about immigration policy.”
Wang views birthright citizenship as “much more fundamental than that”.
“It’s part of how our country rejected caste discrimination and championed freedom and equality,” he said.
Yale law professor Akhil Amar called the court’s opinion an excellent example of sticking to the original meaning of the Constitution. The text of the 14th Amendment, he said, “is about the child. It doesn’t say anything about the parents.”
However, University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost was surprised and saddened that the court was so closely divided.
“The entire length of the opinion,” he told NPR, as well as “the fact that four of your justices say that the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship, which was the understanding, suggests that this is a modest argument that the Trump administration has succeeded in getting into the mainstream, even if it hasn’t succeeded in the end result.”
The issues in the Birthright case largely centered on the long-standing, and until Tuesday, meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War. It guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that the only exceptions written into the amendment were for children of certain Indian tribes and foreign diplomats, who were not subject to the laws of the United States at the time. This understanding was so well accepted that even in World War II, when Japanese citizens were confined to internment camps, their children born in those camps were automatically considered American citizens.
Supreme Court decision Tuesday This was the second time judges have upheld birthright citizenship. The court’s previous decision came in 1898 in the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in America to Chinese parents. His great-grandson, Norman Wong, released a statement today saying, “My great-grandfather, Wong Kim Ark, never set out to be a symbol. He was a man, just a cook, and yet he stood up for what was right, and I believe that made a difference. As a result, he stood up for the rights of all of us Americans – it just so happens that I am related to him. Today’s verdict shows that his victory is just as important now.” Is as much as it was in 1898.”
The High Court also issued opinions in two other cases on Tuesday. In an ideologically divided 6-to-3 vote, the court upheld state laws that prevent transgender athletes from playing on women’s sports teams. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the laws violate neither federal statutes nor the 14th Amendment. States have a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of sports, he said, which he suggested could be compromised if transgender girls or women were allowed to play on women’s teams. Similarly, he said transgender athletes may also compromise fairness in athletic competition.
Sitting in the courtroom Tuesday when Kavanaugh gave his brief statement, not only was his wife and mother present, but also his two daughters, whose athletic teams their father has long coached.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her liberal colleagues, issued a partial dissent. She agreed with the majority that the benefits of sports are “immense”, but wrote that these laws unconstitutionally deprive transgender athletes of the opportunity to play with their teammates.
In a third ideologically divided case on Tuesday, the court struck down decades-old limits on the amount of money political parties can spend on candidates. The boundaries were challenged by the Republican National Committee. This decision could increase the amount of money spent on campaigns by millions of dollars.
<a href