最高法院将于周四听取唐纳德·特朗普总统的口头辩论紧急请求撤销阻止他终止出生公民权的行政命令的全国性禁令。
法院罕见的5月开庭为今年夏天做出决定特朗普是否可以推进将美国公民身份仅限于在美国土地上出生的合法永久居民的计划。
预计该案件还将涉及个别地区法院法官在全国范围内单独阻止总统政策的合法性。特朗普正在寻求解除司法命令，防止联邦大规模裁员,资金冻结，并加急驱逐协议.
一个多世纪以来，法院和政府将第14修正案的公民身份条款解释为适用于任何在美国出生的人，无论孩子父母的公民身份如何。
这修正案内战后批准的《宪法》规定，所有“在美国出生或归化美国并受其管辖的人，都是美国和他们所居住的州的公民。”
特朗普上任第一天就签署了一份美国总统之行政命令单方面宣布，只有父母拥有永久合法身份的新生儿才“受美国管辖”，因此有资格成为美国公民。
“本届政府认为出生公民权是违宪的，”白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特在2月的一次简报会上解释说。
三组不同的原告起诉阻止该命令，包括由22个国家组成的集团、移民倡导团体以及即将分娩的孩子会受到影响的孕妇。
“与生俱来的公民权是我们国家基本信条的核心，即在我们的土地上出生的所有人都是平等的，无论他们的出身如何，”移民倡导者的律师在法律简报中写道。
根据政府数据，美国每年约有15万名儿童出生在父母不是合法永久居民的家庭。
这些州在提交给法庭的文件中警告称，“在上诉进行期间，这些儿童将被迫生活在阴影中，面临被驱逐出境的持续风险”，而不是充分参与和归属自己的祖国——美国——的权利
马里兰州、马萨诸塞州和华盛顿州的联邦法官以及三个联邦上诉法院小组发布了全国性的禁令，在诉讼期间暂停特朗普的政策，并得出结论认为，这很可能违反了宪法和高等法院的先例。
“我已经做了40多年的法官。华盛顿西区的法官John Coughenour在今年1月的听证会上说，“我不记得还有哪一个案件的陈述像这里这样清楚。”。"这是一项公然违反宪法的命令。"
1898年，最高法院直接处理了在美国领土上出生的非公民子女的公民身份问题，在具有里程碑意义的case U.S. v Wong Kim Ark一案中裁定，根据法律，他们是美国人。
“[第14号]修正案用明确的语言和明显的意图，包括所有其他人在美国领土内出生的孩子，无论种族或肤色，居住在美国境内，”法官霍勒斯·格雷(Horace Gray)以6-2的多数写道。任何他国的公民或臣民，在美国居住时，都应受合众国的效忠和保护，并因此受其管辖。
这个问题以一种不同寻常的姿态回到了高等法院。
双方都没有向法官简要说明行政命令的合宪性。相反，主要的争议在于地区法院法官签发的禁令的范围。
卡托研究所(Cato Institute)的宪法学者伊利亚·索明(Ilya Somin)说，“它只关注法院针对总统极其违宪的行政命令发布全国性禁令是否合适，而不是局限于直接参与诉讼的人或居住在起诉政府的州的人的补救措施。”
特朗普政府抱怨说，法官应该只被允许阻止有争议的政策，因为它影响了提起诉讼的实际原告，而不是普遍阻止。
“只有法院的干预才能阻止普遍禁令被普遍接受，”代理副检察长萨拉·哈里斯在政府向法院提交的申请中写道。
政府重塑联邦政府、大幅削减联邦支出、改革移民政策以及限制对性少数群体人的保护的许多高调尝试，都被地区法院发布的全国性禁令所阻止。
来自两党政府的司法部律师长期以来一直抱怨过度使用全国性的禁令和所谓的对行政部门权力的侵犯。法院可以利用这一案例来阐明什么时候这种全面的禁令是正当的，什么时候不是。
哈里斯说:“本法院应该宣布，在地区法院对普遍禁令的日益依赖变得更加根深蒂固之前，已经够了。”他呼吁法官缩小适用于出生公民权秩序的禁令。
移民倡导者、民权组织和民主党州检察长警告说，在一些地方阻止特朗普与生俱来的公民权，但在其他地方不阻止——或者豁免一小部分原告，但不豁免其他人——将造成混乱。
“特朗普的命令对一些人有效，但对另一些人无效(或者，在一些州有效，但对其他州无效)，这种情况会造成明显的混乱和异常，”他说，“特别是在涉及一项应该在全国统一的政策(公民身份规则)时。”
一些法律学者表示，如果不解决特朗普试图重新定义出生公民权的潜在争议，法院可能无法解决全国禁令的问题。
“他们必须解决整个问题，”宪法学者、南德克萨斯法学院教授乔希·布莱克曼说。“避免禁令问题的唯一方法是根据是非曲直作出裁决。我相信他们会做出不利于特朗普的裁决。他可能会得到一两票，但不会比这更多。”
该案件的判决预计将在初夏做出。
What to know about birthright citizenship as Supreme Court weighs blocks on Trump's order to end it
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday over President Donald Trump'semergency requestto roll back nationwide injunctions blocking his executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The rare May sitting of the court sets the stage fora decision by this summeron whether Trump can move forward with plans to limit U.S. citizenship only to children born on American soil to lawful permanent residents.
The case is also expected to address the legality of individual district court judges single-handedly blocking a presidential policy nationwide. Trump is seeking to dissolve judicial orders preventingmass federal layoffs,funding freezes, and expediteddeportation protocols.
For more than a century, courts and the government have interpreted the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause to apply to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship status of a child's parents.
TheAmendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
On his first day in office, Trump signed anexecutive orderunilaterally declaring that only newborns whose parents have permanent legal status are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be citizens.
"This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained during a February briefing.
Three different sets of plaintiffs sued to block the order, includinga group of 22 states, immigrant advocacy groups, and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children would be affected.
"Birthright citizenship is at the core of our Nation's foundational precept that all people born on our soil are created equal, regardless of their parentage," attorneys for the immigrant advocates wrote in legal briefs.
An estimated 150,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to parents who are not legal permanent residents, according to government data.
"Instead of the right to full participation and belonging in their home country -- the United States -- these children will be forced to live in the shadow," the states warned in court filings, "under the constant risk of deportation while the appeals run their course."
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state -- and three federal appeals court panels -- have issued nationwide injunctions keeping the Trump policy on hold during litigation, concluding that it very likely violates the Constitution and high court precedent.
"I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here," said Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington during a January hearing in the case. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
In 1898, the Supreme Court directly addressed the question of citizenship for children born to non-citizens on U.S. soil, ruling in the landmark case U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that they are Americans under the law.
"The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States," wrote Justice Horace Gray for the 6-2 majority. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
The issue arrives back at the high court in an unusual posture.
Neither side has briefed the justices on the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, the primary dispute is over the scope of injunctions issued by individual district court judges.
"It focuses only on whether it is appropriate for courts to issue nationwide injunctions against the President's egregiously unconstitutional executive order, as opposed to remedies limited to people directly involved in the litigation or those living in states that have sued the government," said Ilya Somin, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.
The Trump administration has complained that judges should only be allowed to block a contested policy insofar as it impacts the actual plaintiffs who brought the case -- not block it universally.
"Only this Court's intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable," acting solicitor general Sarah Harris wrote in the government's application to the court.
Many of the administration's high-profile attempts to reshape the federal government, sharply curtail federal spending, transform immigration policy, and limit protections for LGBTQ people have been blocked by nationwide injunctions issued by district courts.
Justice Department attorneys from administrations of both political parties have long complained about the overuse of nationwide injunctions and alleged incursion on executive branch power. The court may use this case to articulate parameters for when such sweeping injunctions are warranted and when they are not.
"This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched," Harris said, calling on the justices to narrow the injunctions applied to the birthright citizenship order.
Immigrant advocates, civil rights organizations, and Democratic state attorneys general have warned that blocking Trump's birthright citizenship in some places but not others -- or, exempting a small group of plaintiffs but not others -- would create chaos.
"A situation where Trump's order is in force for some people, but not others (or, alternatively, in some states but not others), creates obvious confusion and anomalies," he said, "especially when it comes to a policy (citizenship rules) that is supposed to be uniform throughout the nation."
Some legal scholars say it may be impossible for the court to address the question of nationwide injunctions without also resolving the underlying dispute over Trump's attempt to redefine birthright citizenship.
"They're going to have to address the whole thing," said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. "The only way to avoid the scope of the injunction question is to rule on the merits. I believe they're going to rule against Trump. He gets maybe one or two votes but not much more than that."
