Supreme Court keeps hold on birthright citizenship – will hear arguments in May

NOTE: An injunction is a legal order issued by a court that requires a person or entity to either do something specific or refrain from doing something.

(by Devin Dwyer, ABC News) – The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would hear expedited oral arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s emergency request to rollback nationwide injunctions [by district judges in Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland] against his executive order to end birthright citizenship. [The injunctions stay in place until the court rules on the emergency request, meaning the executive order continues to be blocked nationwide while the case is pending].

The nation’s highest court set arguments for May 15 at 10 a.m.

The move by the justices sets the stage for a decision by this summer on three separate district court injunctions that had blocked the administration from moving forward with its plan [to end birthright citizenship, which grants] citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who do not have permanent legal status.

Trump had asked the Supreme Court to allow the administration to, at the very least, begin planning for the change. He also took aim at the universal lower court mandates [orders] that he argued exceeded their authority.

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Trump’s acting solicitor general wrote in the application. “The Court should stay* the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and the identified members of the organizational plaintiffs (and, if the Court concludes that States are proper litigants, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States).” [*A stay is a court order that temporarily halts or suspends a legal proceeding or the enforcement of a court order. It essentially puts the case on hold until a specific condition or event occurs].

“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” she added.

…Earlier this month, a coalition of 22 Democrat led states and immigrant advocates had asked the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s emergency request to rollback a nationwide injunction against his executive order ending birthright citizenship.

“Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay,” they wrote. “This Court should deny the federal government’s request. Many aspects of constitutional interpretation are hotly debated, but not the merits question in this case. For over a century, it has been the settled view of this Court, Congress, the Executive Branch, and legal scholars that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to babies born in the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship, “allegiance,” “domicile,” immigration status, or nationality.”

Published at ABC News on April 17. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission.