SCOTUS to hear birthright citizenship arguments. Here’s what we know.
The Supreme Court will hear birthright citizenship arguments in May. Here’s what we know about its impact.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court is debating today whether federal judges went too far when they paused President Donald Trump’s restrictions on the automatic right to citizenship for children born in the United States.
Judges have ruled the policy will likely be found unconstitutional when it’s fully litigated so Trump can’t enforce it in the meantime.
The Trump administration argues the executive order he signed his first day back in office can only be paused for the individuals challenging the president’s executive order.
The states, immigrants’ rights groups and expectant parents who successfully sought national injunctions say they’re the only way to prevent a chaotic patchwork of citizenship rules across the country.
How the high court responds will affect not only whether birthright citizenship will be curtailed at least temporarily, but also if it will be harder for judges to pause other Trump initiatives.
Follow along for live updates.
It’s rare for the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on emergency requests, which are usually decided after the justices consider limited written arguments.
They’ve done so only four times since 1971.
Oral arguments not only give the justices a chance to question both sides but also enable the public to get a sense of how they’re considering the case.
And the justices’ decision is expected to be explained more fully than the orders they issue on most emergency requests.
–Maureen Groppe
A divided Supreme Court gave Trump a big win on May 6, ruling that the administration can enforce the president’s ban on transgender people serving in the military while court challenges continue.
The majority did not explain their decision, including whether they are receptive to the administration’s complaints about national injunctions.
In other emergency filings, the court sided with the administration after federal judges ordered probationary workers be rehired and teacher training grants be resumed.
But a 5-4 majority said the administration had to pay foreign aid groups for work already completed.
And in a deportation case, the court said migrants had to use a different procedure to challenge their deportations but also said the administration had to give them an opportunity to do so.
–Maureen Groppe