The U.S. Supreme Court held an oral argument to challenge President Donald Trump’s executive order to dismantle the fundamentals of American citizenship. His order aimed to end citizenship that is awarded at birth to children of undocumented individuals or those in the U.S. by a temporary visa. Trump v Barbara challenges Trump’s capricious prejudice labeled as denying birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship has been a long-standing legal principle. It has supported Americans since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed — granting citizenship to all persons born in the U.S.
The line of the 14th Amendment that U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer specifically pounded into the Supreme Court floor was, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out Sauer’s shallow reasoning.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ but the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”
Roberts clearly lays out Sauer’s poor logical reasoning, this is all Sauer’s argument is — weak and thrown together. This executive order’s reasoning is equivalent to finding a tails up penny on the ground and deciding that that is the only way a penny can lay.
As Justice Elena Kagan noted, the government’s reasoning uses obscure sources.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that his logic would allow for the government to retroactively unnaturalize people who were born here from illegal residents. Sauer was unable to grapple with this truth, failing to represent the U.S. and himself.
Sauer’s out-of-place analysis did not play well for him. It is unclear if he assumed during a SCOTUS hearing no one would actually question him or if he is truly this dense.
Sauer alluded to the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins decision, where tribal Indian members were denied birthright citizenship, attempting to support his argument that U.S. citizenship requires an allegiance to the country. He set up an already flawed premise: That case has been ousted by the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch later questioned Sauer’s opinion on Native American citizenship. Sauer was unable to give a straightforward answer.
“I’m not sure — I have to think through that, but – but –” Sauer struggled, unable to answer a simple question. Gorsuch eventually pressed a half yes out of him. Sauer should try to actually give thought to the cases he references.
Sauer fumbled through the hearing, regurgitating the same “domicile” chatter. Sauer argues that those living in the U.S. undocumented or with temporary visas cannot legally become domiciled because their long-term presence is restricted, therefore their children should not be granted birthright citizenship.
Additionally, Sauer foolishly and repeatedly attempted to use U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which enforced granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign-born parents. Gorsuch even warned him to calm down on the Ark references. Riding on a precedent that destroys the case he is fighting for is ridiculous.
Sauer kept his definitions vague, passed dubious reasoning and was unable to back any of it. The court will not make a ruling until late June. For now, Sauer will have to simmer on his groundless argument.
