WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States heard a case Wednesday that could redefine who automatically becomes an American citizen.
The case is centered around an order by President Trump to limit birthright citizenship. The fate of that order now lies in the hands of the Supreme Court justices.
Outside the Supreme Court — rallygoers and advocates gathering to speak up for birthright citizenship- “Which is a fundamental constitutional right that’s set forth in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution,” said Carol Rose, the executive director for the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Some, showed up because of fear.
“The community is very scared,” said Maria Jose Padmore.
And some, to remind the nation that they’ve been here.
“Making sure that our voices get heard and let people know that our communities have been here for decades,” said Kevin Xu.
Kevin Xu and Maria Jose Padmore come from immigrant families.
“They were just told that as long as you work hard and kept your nose clean, you can establish roots, build your family here, be Americans. And then now it just seems that those sorts of promises were not really true after all,” said Xu.
“My mom was born in Nicaragua. So my Nicaraguan side of the family, they are immigrants and they have come here starting in 1980,” said Padmore. “The 14th Amendment is a right and we should keep it.”
For the first time — a sitting U.S. president, Donald Trump, attended oral arguments to hear attorneys debate an executive order he signed on his first day in office that would limit citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who has at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.
If justices decide to uphold the president’s order, it would prevent automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrants — reversing a more than a century-old precedent since the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision.
“Ever since Wong Kim Ark, the understanding has been that birthright citizenship applies pretty much across the board,” said Tommy Berry, Director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.
Berry said the president’s order looks at cases prospectively, but adds there wouldn’t be anything stopping the administration from looking back at previous cases- if the court were to side with the administration.
“The Trump administration is trying to hedge its bets by saying, we’re only going to do this prospectively. They’re trying to say, ‘don’t worry, if you were born here 30 years ago to someone in the country illegally, we’re not taking away your citizenship,’” said Berry. “But if the court ruled the other way for the Trump administration, there’s nothing holding them to keep that promise because it’s a constitutional question, it’s not a statutory question. And I think that’s why people are legitimately very concerned.”
The legal battle turns on a single line in the Fourteenth Amendment — which says anyone born in the United States — and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is a citizen. The administration argued that phrase empowers the president’s order. But critics of the order say that interpretation breaks with more than a century of precedent — and could create new bureaucratic hurdles for families, while raising questions about documentation, hospital procedures and federal records.
Berry is skeptical of the administration’s argument, and he believes most justices are as well.
“My gauge is there’s a clear majority to vote against the Trump administration and in favor of the ACLU representing the challengers to this order,” said Berry.
The court is expected to rule by the end of the term this summer.
