The Supreme Court weighs Trump plea in order to implement the plan for birthright citizenship borders

Washington – The Supreme Court on Thursday weighs whether the radical reinterpretation of President Donald Trump can at least partially come into force on the guarantee of birth law, while the legal disputes are continued.

In an unusual step, the court hears oral arguments for a number of emergency inquiries from the Trump administration in order to restrict the scope of the nationwide disposal that was announced almost as quickly as in January.

A decision that is on the administration would not only boost Trump's proposal to Trump's suggestion, but also help the administration to implement other guidelines via executivactions, many of which were also blocked nationwide by judges under court.

The US general Prosecutor D. John Sauer complained to the judges that there had been a “cascade” national dispositions against Trump's guidelines that “caused” a variety of practical problems “. He described such commands “a cross -party problem that now extends the last five presidential administrations”.

Sauer suggested that the cases should be brought individually and said: “The courts grant people who complain before them.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberals of the court, suggested in this case that such an injunction was necessary.

“As far as I see them, this command violates four precedent of the Supreme Court. And they claim that not only the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no subsequent court can prevent an executive, generally against this participation, these stocks,” she said.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the conservative majority, asked Sauer how long universal systems were used. Sauer said they were used in the 1960s.

“So we survived without universal systems until the 1960s?” Asked Thomas.

“It's just right,” replied Sauer.

The judges have not agreed to answer the greater legal question, whether Trump's plan summarizes with the 14th change in the constitution, in which it says: “All persons who were born or naturalized in the United States and are subject to jurisdiction.”

The long -term interpretation of the provision, as from generations of Americans, including lawyers on the left and right, is that everyone who was born on US floor is an American citizen with some minor exceptions, including people who are children of diplomats.

As part of Trump's hard immigration policy, he would like to restrict citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is the American citizen or a constant US resident.

Trump confiscated the legal theory for the first time in his first term as a way to gather its base. It was funded by some right-wing anti-immigration groups and John Eastman, one of the former legal advisors of Trump, during his attempts to overthrow the 2020 elections.

“The birth law was not intended for people to go on vacation to become constant citizens of the United States of America and to laugh at their families all the time over the 'Suckers' that we are!” Trump said on Thursday morning in a social contribution to the truth.

Activists who support the current interpretation of born citizenship gathered before the arguments before the court, kept signs and sang slogans. “Trump has to go now,” said a banner.

In accordance with the historical understanding of the 14th change, every dish that has decided on the plan has so far blocked it. Trump filed three separate emergency applications at the Supreme Court to limit the collapsing applications placed by the judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington State.

The Trump administration has loudly complained about judges who published “universal income”, which blocked various guidelines that were introduced in the first month of the president. The Ministry of Justice stated that there have been 39 such decisions to a large number of questions, including the ban on the government's transgender population, which served the military that the Supreme Court recently came into force.

Trump has largely rely on aggressive orders from the executive to issue his agenda instead of looking for laws of congress or regulatory measures by federal authorities.

The administration's argument is that federal judges are simply not authorized to make extensive decisions that affect other people than the legal disputes before them. If the judges decide that a government policy is illegal, the decision should only apply to the sued individual plaintiffs or companies, according to the administration.

In response to this, the challengers say that in a topic like birthright, a nationwide injunction is sometimes appropriate because it is important to have the uniformity of such a fundamental right.

Even if some nationwide plants cannot be justified, the Supreme Court should not use the case of birthright in order to contain the ability of the judges to issue them at all, lawyers argue for the plaintiffs.

The administration has asked the court to limit the one -off persons or organizations that were sued, and possibly the 22 countries led by New Jersey and Washington, which have submitted separate lawsuits to get birth.

Depending on which measures the court took, the proposal could come into force in more than half of all US states, not others, but not against someone who is not sued himself or is not a member of the immigrant -Advocacy organizations Casa and the asylum seeker.

If the court grants the application of the administration in any form, people who are affected by the Executive Ordinance may have to submit their own lawsuits or join a class action.

All of this takes place in the middle of the widespread agreement among legal experts that the Supreme Court would ultimately decide against Trump if the case finally reaches the judges.

In recent years, five of the six members of the Conservative majority of the Court of Justice have expressed concerns about individual judges who have the authority to block the actions of a president nationwide, an authority that is traditionally reserved for the Supreme Court.

Such decisions have not only hindered the Trump government, but also the recent democratic administrations.