Washington – United Conservative Most Supreme Court He ruled on Friday that federal judges did not have the right to issue national orders, but the decision was not clear whether the limitation of President Donald Trump about birthday citizenship He may soon enter into force in a part of the country.
Result He represented the victory of Trump, who complained about the judges returning obstacles in his order. Throughout the country or universal orders have appeared executive power And convert the government and the source of growing frustration towards him and its allies.
But the Tribunal has left the possibility that changes in birth citizenship may remain blocked throughout the country. Trump’s order would refuse citizenship to children born in the USA people who are illegally or temporarily in the country.
»Read more: President Trump wants to end birthday citizenship. Here’s why it will be challenging.
Things are now returning to the lower courts in which the judges will have to decide how to adapt their orders to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, which was written by judge Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett wrote that the enforcement of politics cannot take place for the next 30 days.
Even then it is not clear whether the Tribunal’s decision can create a misleading mosaic of regulations that may differ in 22 states that pose the order of Trump and the rest of the country.
The judges agreed with the administration of Trump, as well as the democratic administration of President Joe Biden, the judges that they exaggerate, issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties in court. The judges have issued over 40 such orders since Trump took office for the second term in January.
The administration appealed to the judges of many of these orders, including those from birth citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues the main decisions regarding sudden accidents or shadow, but in this case he did it.
Federal courts, Barrett wrote: “Do not exercise general supervision over the executive department; they will solve matters and controversy in accordance with the rights of the congress. When the court states that the executive department was unlawfully acting, the answer is also not that the court exceeds his power.”
The president, speaking in the briefing room in the White House, said that the decision was “amazing” and “monumental victory of the constitution”, separation of power and the rule of law.
The leader of the Democratic Senate Chuck Schumer from New York wrote about X that the decision is “unprecedented and terrifying step towards authoritarianism, a serious threat to our democracy and a predictable transition from this extremist Magician court.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in contradiction with the three liberal judges, called this decision “nothing but an open invitation to the government to bypass the constitution.” Yes, said Sotomayor, because the administration can be able to enforce politics, even if it has been questioned and proved to be unconstitutional by a lower instance court.
Sotomayor wrote that the administration did not even ask how it has in other cases, about the complete blocking of decisions about the lower country. “To obtain such a relief, the government would have to show that the order is probably constitutional, impossible task,” she wrote.
But the final fate of the changes that Trump wants to introduce was not in court, Barrett wrote, only the rules that would apply during court cases.
Groups of rights that sued politics submitted novel court documents as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, undertaking a suggestion from judge Brett Kavanaugh that judges may be able to reach anyone who is potentially affected by the decision of birthday citizenship, recognizing their part of the “alleged national class”. Kavanaugh was part of the majority of the court on Friday, but he wrote a separate consistent opinion.
The countries that challenged politics in court said that they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests is nationwide.
“We have all the expectations that we will absolutely succeed in maintaining 14. Amendments as the Law of Earth and of course birth citizenship,” said Prosecutor General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.
He automatically creates birthday citizenship Everyone was born in the United States An American citizen, including children born by mothers in the country illegally. The law was recorded shortly after the Civil War 14. Amendment of the Constitution.
In a noteworthy decision of the Supreme Court of 1898, the United States against Wong Kim Ark, the court ruled that the only children who did not automatically receive US citizenship after birth on American land, were children of diplomats who have loyalty to another government; Enemies present in the US during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; And those born by members of sovereign Indian tribes.
The United States belongs to about 30 countries in which birth citizenship is used – the principle of Jus salt or “soil law” -. Most are in the Americas, and among them are Canada and Mexico.
Trump and his supporters argued that there should be more challenging standards to become an American citizen who called “a priceless and deep gift” in the executive board, which signed the first day of office.
Trump’s administration said that children who were not citizens are not “Subject to jurisdiction” From the United States, the expression used in the correction, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
But states, immigrants and groups of rights that sued the blocking of the executive order, accused the administration of an attempt to consider a broader understanding of birthday citizenship, which has been accepted since the amendment was accepted.
Judges uniformly ruled against administration.
The Department of Justice argued that individual judges do not have the right to give the nationwide influence of their judgments.
Instead, Trump’s administration wanted the judges to let Trump come into force for everyone except a handful of people and groups that sued. In this case, the administration argued that the plan may remain blocked in 22 states that suited. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order, which is not in this case.
The judges also agreed that the administration can publicly announce how he plans to conduct a policy if he can finally come into force.
