Judge skeptically plan to limit citizenship towards Trump, and judges who blocked it

Washington – The Supreme Court submitted a skeptical hearing to a lawyer for President Trump on Thursday, which appealed that blocked his plan to refuse newborns, whose parents were illegally or temporarily in this country.

None of the judges spoke for Trump's plan to restrict citizenship, and some were openly skeptical.

“Every court decides against them,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There will not be much differences of opinion about it.”

If his plan should come into force, “thousands of children are born and made stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But the hearing on Thursday was devoted to a question of procedure that was raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge give a nationwide order to block the president's plan?

Shortly after Trump had issued his executive commands to limit citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington said it was unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response to this, Trump's lawyers asked the court to contain the “epidemic” of nationwide orders that were raised by the district judges.

It is a topic that shared the court and divided both democratic and republican administrations.

Trump's lawyers argued that the judges had exceeded their authority from proceedings. However, it is also procedural that a president tries to revise the constitution by an executive regulation.

The hearing on Thursday did not seem to achieve a consensus about what to do.

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that the plaintiffs should be obliged to raise a class action if they want to win a broad decision. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve the problem.

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How do we get the merits quickly?” he asked.

One possibility was that the Court of Justice request another briefing and possibly a second hearing for the decision of the basic question: Can Trump act the long -term interpretation of the 14th amendment on its own revision?

Shortly after the civil war, the congress of the reconstruction wrote the 14th amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and are subject to the fact that citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.”

Before this time, the Americans were citizens of their states. In addition, the Supreme Court in the notorious decision by Dred Scott said that Blacks are not citizens of their states and could not become a citizen, even if they lived in a Free State.

The changed constitution established the US citizenship as birth law. The only persons who are not subject to the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and in the 19th century Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, the congress changed this rule in 1924 and extended citizenship in the American indigenous people.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that the birth law of the children of foreign migrants living in this country have been expanded. The Court of Justice said that the fundamental rule of citizenship was legally defined by birth, despite the alienation of the parents “.

The decision confirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 as the son of Chinese parents who lived and worked there but were not US citizens.

But several conservative legal professors denied the idea that the expression “subject to jurisdiction” of the United States simply means that people are subject to laws here.

Instead, she refers to people who owe its undivided loyalty to this country. In this case, you claim that it does not extend to illegal immigrants or students and tourists who are temporarily here.

On January 20, Trump gave an executive regulation in which the 14th change did not extend “citizenship to all in the United States”. He said it was the US policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the mother or father of the child was “not a citizen of the United States or a lawful constant resident of the person at the time of the birth of the person.

The right -wing groups for immigrants sued in the name of several pregnant women and were accompanied by 22 countries and several cities.

The judges wasted no time to explain Trump's command unconstitutional. They said that his proposed restrictions had violated the federal law and the precedent of the Supreme Court and the simple words of the 14th change.

In mid-March, Trump's lawyers sent an emergency profession procedure to the Supreme Court with a “modest application”. Instead of deciding on the “important constitutional issues” that contain citizenship, they asked the judges to contain the practice of the district judges, the nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the beginning of the current administration,” they said.

A month later and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments on the basis of this request.

The Attorney General D. John Sauer fought to explain how the judges should be confronted with a government policy that would be unconstitutional and harms an undefeated number of people. Is it clever or realistic that thousands of people register for lawsuits? The judges asked.

It was also difficult for him to explain how such a new guideline would be enforced.

“How will it work? What do hospitals do with a newborn?” Asked Kavanaugh. “What do states do with a newborn?”

“Bundes officials have to find out essentially,” replied Sauer, noting that Trump's command, if confirmed, would not come into force for 30 days.

California has successfully sued 21 other states to block Trump's command, but California. General Rob Bonta said it is important that these decisions apply nationwide.

“The rights guaranteed by the US constitution belong to all in this country – not only in states whose attorney general has questioned the presidents' illegal order. It is clear that a nationwide arrangement is not only appropriate here in order to avoid devastating damage to the states and its inhabitants, but also be oriented directly with the forecast and existing prediction after Thursday.

The judges will probably give a complete opinion in Trump against Casa, but it can only come at the end of June.