SCOTUS to review Trump executive order on birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., a landmark case that stands to profoundly upend the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents.

At issue is the executive order Trump on his first day back in office. The order seeks to end birthright citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or parents with lawful temporary status in the country — a seismic shift that critics note would break with some 150 years of legal precedent.  

Oral arguments in the case are expected to be held sometime between February and April next year, with a ruling expected from the high court by the end of June.

Trump's order would reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which states, "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" — a provision that administration officials argue has been misinterpreted. 

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and which remains blocked by lower courts, seeks to clarify that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright.

A Supreme Court ruling on the issue could have sweeping national implications for an issue Trump officials argue is a crucial component of his hard-line immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of his second White House term. 

Meanwhile, opponents argue that the effort is an unconstitutional and "unprecedented" effort that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of non-citizens, and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court in October to review the merits of Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. 

In his petition, Sauer argued that two lower court decisions handed down earlier this year, which he argued were overly broad, and relied on the "mistaken view" that "birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences."

"The lower court's decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security," Sauer said.

"Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people."

More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

News of the high court's review was met with fierce and immediate backlash from the ACLU and other immigrant advocacy groups in the U.S., which accused Trump on Friday of attempting to "unilaterally rewrite the 14th Amendment."

"For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth," ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang said in a statement. 

"The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress," she added. 

"We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term."

Though the Supreme Court technically reviewed the case in May, both the Trump administration's appeal to the high court, and the justices themselves, steered clear of addressing the merits of the executive order during oral arguments. 

TRUMP ADMIN APPEALS RULING BLOCKING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Instead, both the Trump administration’s appeal and the oral arguments earlier this year focused narrowly on the ability of lower court judges to issue so-called "universal" injunctions that block a president's executive order from taking force nationwide.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

Justices ultimately sided with Trump on the issue, ruling 6-3 to narrow the ability of federal court judges to hand down such injunctions.

The decision to review the birthright citizenship order for a second time comes as justices are already grappling with a host of weighty, consequential issues in Trump's second term — many of which stand to greatly expand the powers of the executive branch.

Justices have weighed Trump's use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, his ability to fire members of independent federal agencies and the use of racial lines in drawing congressional maps, among many other things.

In the near-term, the court's conservative majority has often sided with Trump officials in granting the administration's requests for emergency stays, which block lower court orders from taking force until the case can be considered fully on the merits.