Washington – Trump administration lawyers sent the Supreme Court Call in emergency situations This week, with a “modest” procedural request, not supporting new boundaries on the issue of the issue, but rather narrowing the scope of the provisions that prevented the borders from the in effect.
It is a step that surprised many legal experts.
They wondered about practical application and the integrity of a base for citizenship that applies at least in some parts of the country, but not others.
“This is a terrible issue to raise this issue,” said a law professor at the University of Virginia, Amanda Frost, said. “Without a judicial order at the level of the country, it will be chaos.”
She said that pregnant women may have to cross the government borders to ensure their children are registered as citizens at birth. Judges may have to decide a case on whether these birth records are appropriate.
Soon after President Trump issued his executive, which proposes to end the newly born citizenship, three judges – in the state of Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington’s state – announced the unconstitutional change in the country. They ruled in cases that were brought on behalf of 22 states, including California, and many groups representing immigrants.
“If the global upgrowth matter is logical, this is in such a case,” he saw George Masson University as a professor Ilya Somon wrote in a blog post. “The division of law at the country level by the federal government requires treatment at the country level. This is especially true if illegal affects the rights of large numbers of people, which many of them have not been able to bring individual allowances easily or quickly to challenge them.”
But Trump administration attorneys have argued that the provincial judges should not be allowed to issue provisions that apply at the national level. They said that the court should be acting now to curb these judges.
If the judges agree, this may deny the citizenship in most of the nation for children whose mothers were in the country without legal status.
“Years of experience showed that the executive branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can resort to every presidential procedure everywhere,” wrote the acting lawyer General Sarah Harris. “Universal judicial orders are eliminated closer to the root and branch, that was better.”
However, the judges indicated that they are not ready to move quickly. On April 4, they were placed as a deadline for the responses of lawyers who won the rulings that prevent Trump’s order for the newborn.
In recent years, many judges questioned the strength of one judge to hand over a ruling that applies at the country level.
Sometimes the judges seek to “the entire nation’s ruling of their halls,” this is what Judge Neil Gorsesh said last year.
The Democrats complained when the judges in Texas and Louisiana issued rulings at the country level to prevent the Biden administration regulations.
Two years ago, a conservative judge in Amarello, Texas, ordered a ban on the country’s level of abortion pills. The Supreme Court prevented his matter and then turned it completely on the basis that the anti -cancellation prosecutors had no position to prosecute.
During the first period of Trump, the Republicans complained that the judges in San Francisco and New York prevented his regulations, including the travel ban that stopped visitors from many Islamic majority provinces.
Harris said the problem was worse.
“Global Zarjiya orders have reached epidemiological dimensions since the start of the current administration,” she wrote. “The provinces of the provinces issued more comprehensive orders [temporary restraining orders] During February 2025 alone through the first three years of the Biden Administration. “
Many of the teams may be due to the unusual number of long -term executive orders issued in the first weeks of Trump in his post.
Do not appeal this week from the court to outperform the basic dispute over the meaning of the fourteenth amendment that was adopted after the civil war. “All the people born or evident in the United States, who are subject to the jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the country where they reside,” she says.
This base of citizenship was based on childbirth and was not seriously interrogated in the courts.
But Trump and his supporters confirm that some of the fourteenth amendments did not believe that he had expanded to children temporarily born in the country.
Trump’s executive orderIf it becomes a law, two changes will happen. It would deprive the nationality of a child whether “the mother of the person was illegally present in the United States” and the father was not an American citizen or a permanent legal resident or if the mother is legally in the country but temporarily, such as the student or tourist visa.
The administration can be allowed to resume these full changes in a large part of the country.
But if judges are not ready to support these changes, Harris has suggested a backup choice.
The judges wrote, “At least,” they must make it clear that the administration may develop and issue “instructions that explain how they can implement citizenship in a secret condition.”