A deeply divided United States Supreme Court limited the power of judges to block government policies throughout the country, But he left unsolved a dispute on the restrictions of President Donald Trump to automatic citizenship by birth.
The ruling, with a vote of 6 to 3, determined that Trump’s restrictions to citizens by birth will not take effect for up to 30 days. The judges returned the cases to the lower courts so that the judges consider whether to block the norms again – at least in a part of the country, if not throughout the nation – in challenges presented by a group of states.
By imposing new limits on the power of judges to issue judicial orders nationwide, the ruling could help Trump avoid other challenges to his ambitious agenda. Trump and his allies argued that, in general, a single judge should not have the power to block a national government policy at the national level.
“The federal courts do not exercise a general supervision of the Executive Power,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the conservative majority of the court. “They resolve cases and controversies according to the authority granted by Congress.”
The three liberals of the court harshly criticized the ruling in dissent signal.
“In a stroke, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Instead of standing firm, the court yields.”
While the cases return to the judges of lower courts in the next 30 days, the judges said the administration in the meantime It could take measures to plan the policy, including the issuance of a public guide on how it will work.
LState plaintiffs committed to continue the fight once the cases return to the district courts. New Jersey Attorney, Matthew Pathin, declared that, in his opinion, Friday’s decision leaves open orders with national effect “to protect the plaintiffs themselves.”
“We appreciate the opportunity to continue presenting our case before the District Court, especially because the Executive Order will not immediately enter into force, to demonstrate that the president’s approach on citizenship by birth is a formula for chaos and the damage to the states,” said Pathin. “We trust that its flagrantly unconstitutional order will continue to be suspended by the courts.”
Amendment 14
Trump’s executive order of January 20 would discard the general idea that the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution grants citizens to practically all those born in US territory. Trump would restrict this possibility to babies with at least one American citizen parent or holder of a permanent residence card, which means that not even the newborn children of people with temporary visas would become Americans.
Trump intervened on social networks, qualifying the “great victory” ruling and affirming that citizens by birth “It was related to the children of slaves (of the same year!), Not to the scam of our immigration process”. He added that there will be a press conference at the White House.
The Government did not ask the Court to directly consider the constitutionality of the executive order, but focused on the power of the judges to issue the so -called universal judicial mandates or national scope. Governments of both parties were irritated by universal judicial mandates, arguing that, usually, a single judge should not have the power to block a federal government policy at the national level.
The Supreme Court took the unusual measure to listen to oral arguments on emergency applications on May 15.
Critics say that Trump is trying to revoke unilaterally part of the amendment number 14, which gives citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States and is “Subject to its jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that the provision protected a man born in California of Chinese parents, and reinforced that decision in a 1982 ruling that supported the right of undocumented immigrants to attend public school. Congress has promulgated similar guarantees by law.
Trump’s executive order is being challenged by immigrant rights organizations, affected people and states governed by Democrats. In each of the three cases, a Federal Court of Appeals refused to intervene after a judge of first instance blocked the executive order.
