State AGs Argue Birthright Citizenship Case at Supreme Court

Core Arguments on Birthright Citizenship

• 💡 Birthright citizenship, established 157 years ago after the Civil War, is being debated regarding whether babies born on American soil are entitled to citizenship rights.
• 📌 The core issue is whether citizenship can be revoked or debated based on crossing state lines, with arguments that this undermines the rule of law.
• ⚖️ State Attorneys General argue that the President cannot act like a king and dismantle the 14th Amendment or birthright citizenship through executive order.

Concerns Over Executive Authority and Rule of Law

• ⚠️ The United States government's stance, expressing uncertainty about following binding court precedent, was described as astonishing and a challenge to the rule of law.
• 🚀 The attorneys general emphasize that the President does not have the power to dismantle the 14th Amendment, especially birthright citizenship, which has been law for nearly 150 years.
• 🏛️ They are proud of the team effort and grateful for the justices' thoughtfulness, hoping for a ruling that upholds existing legal precedent and state protections.

Implications for States and Citizens

• 🌍 Arguments against birthright citizenship are deemed absurd, as they would create a situation where citizenship could change by crossing state lines, harming states and their residents.
• 💔 If the court does not get this right, states will be harmed, and the practical implications for managing citizens and their benefits would be unworkable.
• 🚨 The issue extends beyond birthright citizenship, as dismantling one part of the Constitution could lead to the dismantling of other rights, such as those protected by the First and Second Amendments.

The Role of Universal Injunctions

• ❓ A key point of discussion was the use of universal injunctions, with states arguing they are necessary in cases where the President attempts to rewrite fundamental constitutional interpretations.
• ⚖️ While states acknowledge universal injunctions should be reserved for limited circumstances, they contend this case, involving a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, clearly fits those criteria.
• 🗣️ Skepticism was expressed regarding the argument for eliminating universal injunctions, with concerns that this undermines consistency and encourages forum shopping.

Historical Context and Legal Precedent

• 📜 The opposing view argues that the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on birthright citizenship in a holding, citing historical records and precedent that suggest a broader interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" beyond mere territorial presence.
• 📊 It is argued that the historical record and prior precedent are stronger in favor of the executive order than the lower courts have treated them, and that the issue is a close and open question.
• 📈 The argument was made that the harm caused by denying birthright citizenship is not irremediable, as benefits could potentially be paid back after the fact, a key requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.