{"id":11165,"date":"2025-03-25T14:44:26","date_gmt":"2025-03-25T14:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohajone.press\/?p=11165"},"modified":"2025-03-25T14:44:27","modified_gmt":"2025-03-25T14:44:27","slug":"tennessee-ag-backs-trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-in-scotus-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohajone.press\/?p=11165","title":{"rendered":"Tennessee AG Backs Trump\u2019s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order In SCOTUS Brief"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/
 Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a series of emergency appeals, President Donald Trump\u2019s administration requested that the Supreme Court permit him to advance with his plans<\/a> to terminate birthright citizenship, elevating a legal theory that has thus far been rejected by numerous lower courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a series of emergency appeals, the Trump administration asked the justices to limit the impact of the controversial policy, arguing that lower courts had gone too far in issuing nationwide injunctions to block it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January, a federal judge blocked the implementation of his executive order, calling it \u201cblatantly unconstitutional.\u201d Trump\u2019s plan \u201cruns counter to our nation\u2019s 250-year history of citizenship by birth,\u201d a Maryland judge declared a few days later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration\u2019s request to halt lower court decisions that placed nationwide injunctions on an executive order he signed on the first day of his second term has been dismissed by appeals courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment\u2019s language for more than 150 years to ensure citizenship for anyone who is \u201cborn or naturalized in the United States,\u201d irrespective of their parents\u2019 immigration status. That interpretation of the law was upheld by a significant Supreme Court decision in 1898, and the current court has shown no intention of changing that decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, because the 14th Amendment states that the benefit is only available to those who are \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d of the United States, some conservatives have argued that those long-held beliefs are incorrect. According to the theory, people who enter the country illegally are under the jurisdiction of their home country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to requests from over 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs, courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have all issued injunctions preventing implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his appeals to the Supreme Court, Trump is not directly questioning whether the policy is legal or not. Instead, the administration is making what they called a \u201cmodest\u201d request to limit the scope of the injunctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, that is a big ask because if the Supreme Court says yes, the administration will be able to enforce its order against people who aren\u2019t affected by the current lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUniversal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,\u201d the Justice Department told the Supreme Court in its emergency appeals. \u201cThose universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to \u2018hundreds of thousands\u2019 of unspecified individuals who are \u2018not before the court nor identified by the court.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDuring the 20th century,\u201d the administration told the court, \u201cthe executive branch adopted the incorrect position that the citizenship clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States \u2013 even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens,\u201d the administration wrote. \u201cThat policy of near-universal birthright citizenship has created strong incentives for illegal immigration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Friday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti sent an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump\u2019s order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and people who are not citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The brief backs Trump\u2019s request to overturn several nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by federal district courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These injunctions have stopped the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship order from going into effect for now. Skrmetti\u2019s filing says that courts should interpret the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Citizenship Clause based on its \u201coriginal public meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also warns against judicial overreach, which he says upsets the balance of powers in the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCourts are empowered by the Constitution to resolve cases and controversies, not to issue sweeping policy proclamations or manage the executive branch,\u201d Attorney General Skrmetti said in a statement. \u201cUndermining the sovereignty of the American people through judicial overreach threatens to alienate the people from our constitutional system and thereby cause grievous harm to liberty and public order.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his 25-page brief, Skrmetti stresses the need for judges to be careful and asks the Supreme Court to clarify the Citizenship Clause for the first time in modern times. He uses historical records from the time of Reconstruction to show that the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment did not mean for children of foreigners living in the U.S. illegally to become citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skrmetti also didn\u2019t like how lower courts have been issuing more and more nationwide injunctions lately. These, he said, interfere with the separation of powers and make broad national policies from the bench. He talked about how court-ordered policies had hurt Tennessee and other states in the past, especially when it came to immigration and education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rising immigration levels have strained resources and increased public safety concerns in Tennessee and other interior states, according to the brief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Skrmetti notes that more than nine million illegal immigrants have entered the country in recent years, with many settling in non-border states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skrmetti contends that these trends are not only untenable but also intensified by an expansive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, which fosters incentives for unlawful border crossings.<\/p>\n

\n\r\n
\r\n<\/div>\r\n