BOSTON (AP) — In a series of decisions spanning one month this past summer, four federal courts uniformly rejected President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to individuals residing in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

On a recent Friday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston delivered a unanimous judgment affirming that the Republican president lacks the authority to enforce the order, thus aligning itself with four other courts that have similarly blocked it nationwide.

The dispute over birthright citizenship is anticipated to culminate in a Supreme Court decision, with the Trump administration having already requested the high court's engagement on the matter.

Federal judges have unequivocally indicated that Trump's directive stands in stark conflict with established Supreme Court precedence and the Constitution. While the Supreme Court is not obligated to heed the determinations made by lower courts, the setbacks experienced by the administration could signal challenges even among its traditionally supportive justices, who have often ruled favorably in other legal matters pertaining to Trump's agenda.

The 14th Amendment

The principle that confers citizenship at birth has long been a fundamental aspect of American law, derived from the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868. Originally designed to secure citizenship for Black Americans, particularly former slaves, the amendment's citizenship clause guarantees that all individuals born or naturalized in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

The Trump administration's legal arguments assert that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” signifies that citizenship is not automatic for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. They maintain that such parentage signifies a primary allegiance to another nation.

Critics of this interpretation, including legal scholars, argue that the history of the amendment, coupled with subsequent Supreme Court rulings, contradicts the administration's stance. They contend that the amendment was intended to create a broad definition of birthright citizenship encompassing the children of immigrants.

Supreme Court Rulings

In a landmark 1898 case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the son of Chinese immigrants born in San Francisco was entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. While the court has not directly ruled on the citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrants, previous commentary suggests parity with those born to lawful foreign residents.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court took up a challenge related to the birthright citizenship order but sidestepped its constitutionality. Instead, it leveraged the case to impose limitations on lower courts regarding nationwide injunctions, a development viewed as a victory for the administration.

Lower Court Decisions

Beginning with a federal judge in New Hampshire, courts across the nation have consistently blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order. The justices in June indicated that they would not dismiss orders with nationwide implications arising from class-action lawsuits.

Two judges who recently ruled against the birthright order certified a class comprising all children born in the U.S. after the order's February cycle, who would otherwise be denied citizenship under the new regulation.

Other rulings have aligned with states arguing that the inconsistent implementation of the order would not ease their financial burdens, given the transient nature of populations across state lines and potential impacts on government benefits tied to citizenship.

The 1st Circuit concluded its decision affirmatively, with Chief Judge David Barron remarking, The length of our analysis should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question that these cases raise about the scope of birthright citizenship is a difficult one.

White House Response

Following the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson expressed that the administration anticipates vindication by the Supreme Court. To adhere to the executive order, governmental officials would need to verify parental citizenship or immigration status prior to issuing Social Security numbers, alongside similar protocols for passport applications.

___

Thanawala reported from Atlanta.