WASHINGTON (Gray DC) – A majority of the Supreme Court raised serious doubts Wednesday about the legality of one of President Trump\u2019s most prominent executive orders, one which would limit birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n
From the start of the two hours of oral arguments, justices peppered Solicitor General John Sauer with skepticism regarding the president\u2019s executive order, which would limit birthright citizenship only to people with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.<\/p>\n
Among those skeptics was Chief Justice John Roberts.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country. I\u2019m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,\u201d Roberts said.<\/p>\n
With President Trump in the court looking on several rows back, Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment\u2019s citizenship clause was enacted to overrule the case of a slave, Dred Scott, who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here. It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance,\u201d Sauer said.<\/p>\n
But his argument was not received well by liberal justices like Elena Kagan.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo the text of the clause, I think, does not support you. I think you\u2019re sort of looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning, and then the question becomes, okay, if the text doesn\u2019t support you, if there is a real history of people using it that way. But as far as I can tell, you know, at the time of the 14th Amendment, you\u2019re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept,\u201d Kagan said.<\/p>\n
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was surprised that Sauer cited an 1898 landmark case known as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to make his argument. That case held that a man of Chinese ancestry born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents was a U.S. citizen.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not so sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,\u201d Gorsuch said.<\/p>\n
Cecilia Wang, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, a group of expectant parents and their children, argued that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right.<\/p>\n
\u201cAsk any American what our citizenship rule is and they\u2019ll tell you everyone born here is a citizen alike. That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of reach of any government official to destroy,\u201d Wang said.<\/p>\n