Supreme Court justices appear sceptical over Trump’s changes to US birthright citizenship rules – follow live
A key question for the court: to rule based on Constitution, or on statutory grounds?published at 17:00 BST
Daniel Bush
Washington correspondent
The Supreme Court will have to decide whether to base its final
ruling around the Constitution or legislation passed by Congress addressing
birthright citizenship.
That issue — whether the Court rules on constitutional or
statutory grounds — is a key question among court watchers following today’s
hearing. The question is critical because it’ll help shape the scope of the
ruling.
If the court rules on constitutional grounds, it would represent a
major reinterpretation of US law and upend more than a century of precedent
dating all the way back to the 14th Amendment. A narrower ruling would likely
focus on a 1952 immigration law passed by Congress that codified birthright
citizenship status.
The challenge, for the administration, stems from the fact that
Congress relied on the language in the 14th Amendment for its law giving
birthright citizenship to most people born in the US. On this matter there is
very little difference between the more recent law, and the constitution.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued that both were wrong. But
under questioning from Justice Neil Gorsuch he acknowledged that the
administration was seeking the broadest possible ruling.
“This is a straight-up constitutional ruling you want from this
court, win, lose, or draw?” Gorsuch asked. “Yes,” Sauer replied.
That may be too big of an ask for the court. Already today,
several justices signaled they don’t agree with Sauer’s argument that the 14th
Amendment, later court rulings, and the 1950s-era law all got it wrong. The
court may be reluctant in the end to issue a major constitutional ruling that
fundamentally redefines the birthright citizenship process.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also raised the issue just a few minutes ago. “Our usual practice is to resolve things on statutory grounds and not to do constitutional grounds,” he said.
Cecillia Wang, an ACLU attorney, replied that the plaintiffs have “two paths to a win here,” but urged the court to issue a broad ruling affirming the 14th Amendment and past court precedent.
