Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship and judges who blocked it

Los Angeles Times - May 15th, 2025

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism during a hearing on President Trump's appeal against rulings that blocked his executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents. Justices questioned the administration's attempt to change the 14th Amendment through an executive order, with no justice supporting Trump's plan. The hearing focused on whether a single federal judge can issue a nationwide order, as multiple judges had done to block Trump's order shortly after its issuance. The justices debated the procedural aspects of such nationwide injunctions, which have been a contentious issue across different administrations. Justice Kagan highlighted the unanimity of lower court rulings against Trump, while Justice Sotomayor warned about the potential statelessness of thousands of children.

The broader implications of this case involve the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which historically has granted citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, except for children of foreign diplomats. The amendment, a post-Civil War measure, reversed the Dred Scott decision and established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. Trump's order challenges this long-standing interpretation, suggesting it does not apply broadly to children of unauthorized or temporary residents. The Supreme Court's decision on procedural grounds, and possibly on the constitutional question itself, could have significant impacts on immigration policy and the judiciary's role in issuing nationwide orders. The case, Trump vs. CASA, is expected to be decided by late June, with potential shifts in constitutional interpretation at stake.

Donald Trump Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship 14th Amendment Immigration Policy Executive Order Nationwide Injunctions Trump Vs. Casa

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court hearing on President Trump's plan to limit birthright citizenship. It effectively outlines the legal and historical context, making the complex issue accessible to readers. While the article is accurate and timely, it could improve by incorporating more direct sources and a broader range of perspectives, particularly from proponents of the plan. The topic is of high public interest and has the potential to influence public opinion and policy. Overall, the article is well-structured and clear, with the potential to engage readers and provoke meaningful discussion on a controversial issue.

Accuracy

The story presents a generally accurate account of the Supreme Court hearing regarding President Trump's plan to limit birthright citizenship. Key facts such as the skepticism expressed by justices, the procedural questions raised, and the historical context of the 14th Amendment are well-supported by existing records and legal precedents. However, the claim that the Supreme Court may hand down a decision by late June is speculative, as the timing of decisions can vary. Additionally, while the story accurately references the historical context of the 14th Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings, it would benefit from more explicit citations to support these claims, particularly regarding the legal arguments made by conservative scholars.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both the arguments of Trump's lawyers and the skepticism of the Supreme Court justices. It includes perspectives from immigrant rights groups and mentions the involvement of several states and cities in the lawsuit. However, the article could improve balance by including more direct quotes or statements from proponents of Trump's plan, as well as a broader range of legal experts to discuss the implications of the executive order. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the differing opinions on the issue.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the key issues at stake in the Supreme Court case and provides sufficient context for readers unfamiliar with the legal background. The language is neutral and accessible, making the article easy to understand. However, some legal terms and concepts could be further clarified for a general audience.

Source quality

The article lacks direct attribution to specific sources or experts, which affects its credibility. While it references statements from Supreme Court justices and historical legal precedents, it does not specify the sources of its information, such as court transcripts or legal documents. Including more direct citations from court proceedings or interviews with legal experts would enhance the reliability of the article.

Transparency

The article provides some context on the legal and historical background of the 14th Amendment and the issue of birthright citizenship. However, it lacks transparency in disclosing the sources of its information and the methodology used to gather it. The article would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the information was obtained and any potential biases or conflicts of interest that may affect the reporting.