Donald Trump rump gives in, begs Supreme Court to support his last-ditch effort to strip Americans of their longheld right

The Trump administration has finally asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order, which aims to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are either here illegally or temporarily. This move comes after the administration spent months appealing lower court rulings that have consistently blocked the order, and it sets up a major showdown at the high court that could decide the fate of a fundamental constitutional right by next summer.

The core of the issue is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that “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.” For well over a century, this clause has been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. However, Trump’s executive order, signed on the first day of his second term, directly challenges this long-held understanding, with the administration arguing it’s trying to “confirm the original meaning” of the clause.

The administration could have pressed the Supreme Court on the merits of the order months ago, per MSNBC. Instead, they first focused on a procedural issue in a different case (Trump v. CASA), asking the justices to impose stricter conditions on lower court judges issuing broad injunctions against government policies. The Supreme Court gave the administration the procedural ruling it wanted back in June, but that decision didn’t touch the underlying question of the birthright order’s legality. Now, after losing yet another round of litigation in the lower courts, the administration is back, finally asking the justices to take up the main event.

Trump on his last effort to break the constitution

The administration’s legal argument, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is pretty aggressive. Sauer has contended that the prevailing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is “mistaken” and has had “destructive consequences.” He wrote that the lower-court decisions improperly conferred “the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” and argued the clause “was adopted to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children—not to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens.”

Essentially, the administration is claiming that the children of noncitizens are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore aren’t entitled to citizenship. This is despite you being a citizen if your parents are citizens, which means there wouldn’t need to be an amendment.

On the other side of this, opponents of the executive order, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have been winning in the lower courts, which have repeatedly ruled that the order is likely unconstitutional. Cody Wofsy, an ACLU lawyer representing children who would be affected, didn’t mince words, stating that the administration’s plan is “plainly unconstitutional.” He was even more direct in other statements, saying, “This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order.”

The ACLU and other groups have been clear that the 14th Amendment’s purpose was to guarantee citizenship for all, reversing the shameful Dred Scott decision. They argue that this order “would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass” of people born in the U.S. but denied full rights. The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term next week, and we should find out later this year if it decides to add this massive case to its docket.

If they do, a final decision would likely come by early summer. For now, the administration has been appealing two cases that blocked the order, one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and a federal judge’s ruling in New Hampshire, both of which found the executive order to violate, or likely violate, the 14th Amendment.