President Donald Trump has filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting it to limit the authority of lower-court judges who issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal policies.
The appeal, centered on his controversial executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, seeks to curtail what the administration views as an overreach of district courts’ powers, POLITICO reports.
According to the American Immigration Council, birthright citizenship is the principle that grants automatic citizenship to individuals upon birth, either through ancestry or place of birth.
In the U.S., it is based on ‘jus soli‘, meaning citizenship is granted to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, with some exceptions. The U.S. also has ‘jus sanguinis‘, granting citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens. While birthright citizenship is common in the Americas, it is less prevalent in other parts of the world.
Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argues that federal district judges should only issue injunctions within their own jurisdiction, not nationwide, contending that this would allow the Executive Branch to function properly without interference from multiple courts, POLITICO adds.
The appeal focuses on injunctions issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, blocking Trump’s executive order that seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants.
Although Trump’s administration is not yet challenging the constitutionality of the order, it argues that nationwide injunctions are becoming a growing problem, citing 15 injunctions against Trump policies in February alone, the report reads.
Beyond the birthright citizenship case, the Trump administration’s filing also takes aim at state-led lawsuits, particularly those filed by Democratic attorneys general, which have challenged various federal policies.
The administration seeks to limit states’ ability to bring such politically charged lawsuits.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications, potentially reshaping the scope of judicial power and influencing future legal battles over federal policies.
Read Next:
