The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency intervention Thursday limiting lower court rulings that are blocking President Trump’s plans to restrict birthright citizenship.
In the emergency filing, Trump asks that a narrow version of his executive order banning birthright citizenship to move forward, challenging three nationwide injunctions brought in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
In the court filing Thursday, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said that the courts had gone too far, and asked the Supreme Court justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts , per Fox News.
“These cases – which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Harris wrote.
“But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.”
The executive order in question sought to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship.
More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups quickly sued the Trump administration to block the ban on birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and “unprecedented.”
The states have also argued that the 14th Amendment does, in fact, guarantee citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil and naturalized in the U.S.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
I think we should limit birthright citizenship to illegal aliens especially.
A cursory search of the intent of the 14th amendment indicates its purpose was to give citizenship to the freed slaves and make sure they AND THEIR CHILDREN were treated equally under the law. I don’t believe it was ever intended to be used as it has been for so many years —— to give citizenship to “anchor babies”. I pray that the Supreme Court seriously considers original intent and stops the left from abusing our constitution in so many unintended ways to the detriment of our nation.
I guess this means we’re going to find out which Justices fall into the Globalist camp…. and which ones fall into the Sovereigntist camp.
Trump must have a mental dysfunction when it comes to reading the Constitution, and likely the same applies to his reading the Bible.
Odd that they leave out the second of three portions of that section of the 14th Amendment, “and subject the the jurisdiction thereof”. As one who has extensively studied and researched original materials (not the supposedly learned opinion of others) early America and the US Constitution is relation to my BA degree on the subject obtained that I earned in 1978 . Something that I learned in HS American History is that a foreign citizen who has not made an official declaration of their intent to become a US Citizen is NOT “subject the the jurisdiction (of citizenship) thereof.
The following is from a history monograph I wrote in 1986.
What is the exception to the “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of The Fourteenth Amendment (US Constitution)?
The question obviously pertains to “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” as the meaning of being “Born or Naturalized in the US” is clear. It is also clear that because of the wording in the 14th Amendment that there are those that are “Born or Naturalized in the US” that ARE NOT “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof.” WHY are they not NOT “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” and specifically what type or category of jurisdiction is being referred to? First, It is because they are subject to the Jurisdiction of the country that they are citizens of. Second it is the specific category of jurisdiction of whom is responsible to determine citizenship of their own citizens, of an individual who has made no declaration or an intent to declare that they are here in the US to apply for citizenship.
Who are those not subject to this specific jurisdiction there of?
• Diplomats and Children of diplomats and those in the US as councilor employees of their country are not subject to the Citizenship jurisdiction, some (the actual diplomats) are not subject to ANY Jurisdiction (termed diplomatic immunity) of the US or any of its States.
• Foreign military personnel in the US on assignment.
• Any foreign citizen or individual whom has entered the US with NO intent of becoming a citizen, as they have no intent of becoming a US citizen their parent country has sole citizenship jurisdiction, just being in the US does not provide the US Citizenship jurisdiction. “I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man (person) born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, primary Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (and the 14th as a whole), March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend. Declaration of intent is deemed sufficient to negate any possible citizenship jurisdiction of their parent country.
Interesting that in two speeches before congress (including the one quoted from above) he acknowledged the understanding and definition of what a “Natural Born Citizen” is.
“All … persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
In 1862 During the 37th Congressional Debate on the 14th Amendment, Ohio Representative John Bingham, known as the Chief Architect and Father of the 14th Amendment stated: “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
In 1866, during 14th Amendment House debates, Ohio Representative John Bingham, stated: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man (person) born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.