Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed soon after becoming president again in January.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

Trump said he is “so happy” the Supreme Court will hear arguments.

“I think the case has been so misunderstood,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

He noted that the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War. He suggested that means it is “all about slavery.”

“If you look at it that way, we would win that case,” Trump said.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Reacting to the court's order Thursday, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, leading one of the lawsuits, said birthright citizenship "cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man."

Judges so far have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department argues that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The administration instead wants the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration says that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

As a further fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

However, while the emergency appeal is not directly focused on the validity of the order, the justices probably will find it hard to avoid that underlying issue.

If the court is inclined to agree with the administration, it risks creating a confusing patchwork of rules in which the state in which a child is born could determine whether citizenship is granted automatically.

Several justices have raised concerns in the past about nationwide, or universal, injunctions, but the court has never ruled on the matter.

The administration made a similar argument in Trump’s first term, including in the Supreme Court fight over his ban on travel to the U.S. from several Muslim majority countries.

The court eventually upheld Trump’s policy, but did not take up the issue of nationwide injunctions.

The Justice Department has complained that the use of these broad court orders “thwart the Executive Branch’s crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness.”

The administration faces more than 150 lawsuits over Trump's fast-paced efforts to reshape the federal government. Judges have issued dozens of orders delaying the president's agenda.

___

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.