The latest injunction settles what the government may do today, but it will not end the argument over citizenship, executive power and the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Trump’s latest attempt to narrow birthright citizenship, issuing a preliminary injunction while a class-action lawsuit proceeds. The order targeted particular cases involving so-called birth tourism and other circumstances the administration argued fall outside automatic citizenship.
Under the prevailing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, nearly everyone born on American soil becomes a citizen at birth. The Supreme Court reinforced that position earlier this year, and Judge Deborah Boardman relied on that precedent in concluding that the new executive action was likely unconstitutional as applied to the affected class.
Conservatives should resist two temptations. The first is pretending the ruling is merely the tantrum of a single judge. The administration is confronting formidable constitutional precedent, and wishing it away does not produce a winning legal argument. The second is accepting that the policy debate must therefore be permanently closed.
Those are different questions. A court can correctly describe existing law while citizens continue debating whether that law creates incentives Congress never intended to tolerate.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Americans and their descendants. Modern disputes involve illegal immigration, temporary visitors, commercial surrogacy arrangements and people accused of entering the country specifically to secure citizenship for a child. Applying an old constitutional command to new circumstances requires more than slogans from either side.
The administration’s critics describe every limitation as an attack on the Constitution. Its supporters sometimes speak as though an executive order can resolve a question embedded in constitutional text and generations of precedent. Neither position is adequate.
If birthright citizenship is to be narrowed, the durable route may require legislation, a carefully constructed test case, or ultimately a constitutional amendment. Executive action can force the issue into court, but it cannot manufacture authority the judiciary concludes the president does not possess.
That does not make the present system beyond criticism. A nation has a legitimate interest in preventing fraud and deciding whether temporary presence should produce permanent political membership for the next generation. Other countries have confronted similar questions without declaring the debate immoral.
The ruling should sharpen the conservative argument. The issue is not whether judges should ignore precedent because an administration dislikes it. The issue is whether Congress and the public will address loopholes and incentives openly instead of allowing courts and executive orders to carry the entire burden.
For now, the injunction controls. The constitutional and political fight, however, is nowhere close to finished.
Daniel Mercer is a conservative political writer specializing in elections, government, foreign policy, and the growing power of America’s political and administrative institutions. His work focuses on how decisions made in Washington affect ordinary Americans far beyond the capital. Mercer is particularly interested in executive power, government bureaucracy, media influence, immigration, national security, and the evolution of the Republican Party. At The Dispatch Room, he approaches politics from a pragmatic conservative perspective, separating political theater from the decisions and institutions that actually shape public policy.
Discussion
Loading discussion…