In defeat for Trump, US Supreme Court upholds right to citizenship by birth

American justice maintains rule of automatic citizenship by birth in United States territory
The Supreme Court of the United States decided this Tuesday (30) to maintain a broad interpretation of citizenship by birth, thus rejecting the executive order signed by President Donald Trump that declared that children of illegal immigrants or tourists were not American citizens.
By 6 votes to 3, the Court's judges confirmed a consolidated understanding of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and concluded that any person born in the country, with very few exceptions, limited, is a citizen of the United States.
✅ Follow the g1 international news channel on WhatsApp
The restrictions imposed by Trump had already been blocked by several lower courts and never came into force in any part of the country.
Trump had not publicly commented on the Supreme Court's decision until the last update of this report. However, hours before the verdict he republished on his social media a report that stated that "his efforts to limit birthright citizenship may succeed with or without the Supreme Court."
Trump supporter in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC
Cheney Orr/Reuters
Principle of right to land
Historically, the United States grants citizenship on the principle of "jus soli", or right to land: everyone born in American territory are American citizens, including children of tourists or immigrants. Exceptions are few and specific, such as for children of diplomats from other countries serving in the US.
The so-called birthright citizenship is provided for in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that "all persons born" in the United States "are citizens of the United States".
On the first day of his second term as president, however, Donald Trump signed an executive order limiting this right, although without clear details about granting citizenship. The measure is part of a broader package to combat immigration, which could bar the granting of citizenship to children born in the US to immigrants or tourists.
The case reached the Supreme Court through a process initiated in New Hampshire called "Trump versus Barbara".
It began when a Honduran immigrant named Barbara, resident of the state of New Hampshire, sued the Trump administration for considering a measure restricting American citizenship unconstitutional.
Barbara and her husband are non-immigrants. documented and she has three children, all born in Honduras. She decided to sue the government after discovering that she was pregnant with her fourth child, who would be born in the USA, but would not be entitled to American citizenship.
Barbara's last name was not publicly released for fear that she would be the target of reprisals from the president's supporters.
In early April, Trump personally attended a Supreme Court hearing that would hear arguments from the parties on the case. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a president of the country went to the Supreme Court to monitor a trial.
The appearance was seen by the country's press as a way for Trump to put pressure on the court to judge the case in his favor.
This Tuesday's decision by the Supreme Court maintains the understanding of the 14th Amendment consolidated since 1898, when it decided in favor of granting citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, son of Chinese parents born in the USA.
The Trump administration claimed that automatic citizenship encourages citizenship. irregular immigration and so-called "birth tourism," when foreigners travel to the country to have children and secure American citizenship for them.
The justices' arguments
Conservative Justice John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court and rapporteur of Tuesday's decision, cited 1898 precedent and said there was "little evidence" to support the Trump administration's "drastically revisionist view" on how to interpret the 14th Amendment's language to limit birthright citizenship.
"It is not surprising, then, that in 128 years since then, we have repeatedly understood the rule established in Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction," Roberts wrote. "We see no reason to depart from that interpretation today."
Transgenders in sports and campaign spending
Also on Tuesday (30), the Supreme Court ruled that states can ban the participation of transgender girls and women in women's school and college sports. In this case the decision was unanimous: by nine votes to zero.
In another case, the court once again overturned limits on campaign financing, rejecting federal restrictions on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates.
On Monday, Trump had 3 defeats and one victory
In final decisions in other cases, taken on Monday (29), the Supreme Court granted a victory to Trump in one case, while imposing defeats in three other cases of interest to the White House. See below:
The victory:
Permission for the president to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies: the court gave permission for President Donald Trump to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the independent federal agency that regulates competition in the country. The decision expands presidential powers over the government and reverses the Court's own 1935 understanding, which had recognized Congress's authority to protect leaders of certain regulatory agencies from presidential removals. Last year, Trump dismissed Rebecca Slaughter from the FTC due to political differences.
The defeats:
Prohibition of the dismissal of the director of the Fed (equivalent to the US Central Bank), Lisa Cook: the Republican had announced the dismissal of the director last year, increasing pressure on the institution, which acts independently from the government. The court, however, reversed its decision. If he had succeeded, he would be the first president to remove a member of the Fed since its creation in 1913.
Allowing the counting of mail-in votes after Election Day: Trump had promised last year to end the use of mail-in votes across the country before the November legislative elections, in which his Republican colleagues seek to maintain control of Congress. By 5 votes to 4, however, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court and ruled that states that so wish will be able to count votes posted in the mail until Election Day and received in the following days.
Rejection of a request to overturn the decision on Trump's conviction for sexual abuse: The president wanted to overturn the decision of a jury that, in 2023, concluded that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll and later defamed her. The Republican was ordered to pay compensation of US$5 million to the victim.

Source: G1