![\"Analysis\"](\"https:\/\/static.files.bbci.co.uk\/core\/website\/assets\/static\/news\/incident-types\/light-mode\/analysis.77b314ef10.svg\")
A key question for the court: to rule based on Constitution, or on statutory grounds?published at 17:00 BST<\/p>\nA key question for the court: to rule based on Constitution, or on statutory grounds?published at 17:00 BST<\/p>\n
17:00 BST<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court will have to decide whether to base its final That issue — whether the Court rules on constitutional or If the court rules on constitutional grounds, it would represent a The challenge, for the administration, stems from the fact that Solicitor General John Sauer argued that both were wrong. But “This is a straight-up constitutional ruling you want from this That may be too big of an ask for the court. Already today, Justice Brett Kavanaugh also raised the issue just a few minutes ago. \u201cOur usual practice is to resolve things on statutory grounds and not to do constitutional grounds,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Cecillia Wang, an ACLU attorney, replied that the plaintiffs have \u201ctwo paths to a win here,\u201d but urged the court to issue a broad ruling affirming the 14th Amendment and past court precedent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A key question for the court: to rule based on Constitution, or on statutory grounds?published at 17:00 BST…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":865211,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5311],"tags":[49,978,659],"class_list":{"0":"post-865210","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"tag-united-states","9":"tag-us","10":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116330366803010906","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/865210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=865210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/865210\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/865211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=865210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=865210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=865210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/dc285c89-adc2-4f3d-ad5a-c311772563fa.jpg.webp.webp\")
Daniel Bush<\/strong>
Washington correspondent<\/p>\n
\nruling around the Constitution or legislation passed by Congress addressing
\nbirthright citizenship. <\/p>\n
\nstatutory grounds — is a key question among court watchers following today\u2019s
\nhearing. The question is critical because it\u2019ll help shape the scope of the
\nruling.<\/p>\n
\nmajor reinterpretation of US law and upend more than a century of precedent
\ndating all the way back to the 14th Amendment. A narrower ruling would likely
\nfocus on a 1952 immigration law passed by Congress that codified birthright
\ncitizenship status.<\/p>\n
\nCongress relied on the language in the 14th Amendment for its law giving
\nbirthright citizenship to most people born in the US. On this matter there is
\nvery little difference between the more recent law, and the constitution.<\/p>\n
\nunder questioning from Justice Neil Gorsuch he acknowledged that the
\nadministration was seeking the broadest possible ruling.<\/p>\n
\ncourt, win, lose, or draw?” Gorsuch asked. \u201cYes,\u201d Sauer replied.<\/p>\n
\nseveral justices signaled they don\u2019t agree with Sauer\u2019s argument that the 14th
\nAmendment, later court rulings, and the 1950s-era law all got it wrong. The
\ncourt may be reluctant in the end to issue a major constitutional ruling that
\nfundamentally redefines the birthright citizenship process.<\/p>\n