The Supreme Court ended much of its term without deciding President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, leaving the case open as the justices wrapped a run of immigration and gun-rights rulings. The unresolved dispute keeps the meaning of birthright citizenship tied to a future ruling instead of a final decision.
Jonathan Fahey, a former federal prosecutor and former Acting ICE Director, said the Court’s recent opinions suggest a broader trend of giving significant deference to the executive branch, particularly on immigration matters. He said the justices may closely examine the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Jonathan Fahey on the Court
Fahey said, “Temporary” means temporary,” in discussing Temporary Protected Status, and added, “The executive branch gets to make the determination, not a court.” He also said, “The key issue is what does it mean to be under the jurisdiction of the United States?” and, “That definition is critical.”
His comments tracked the Court’s recent action on immigration: it ruled that migrants stopped before entering the United States are not entitled to seek asylum in U.S. courts, and it allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status for certain groups of migrants while litigation continues. The Court also struck down Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule,” which required concealed-carry permit holders to obtain permission before carrying firearms into many businesses open to the public.
Trump Birthright Citizenship
The birthright citizenship case remains one of the Court’s high-profile unresolved matters, and Fahey said the legal fight is unlikely to end with this case. Even if the justices reject President Donald Trump’s executive order, he said, the Court could leave open whether Congress has authority to further define how birthright citizenship is applied under federal law.
That leaves the immediate question in place for people affected by the case: the executive order has not been decided, and the legal meaning of the 14th Amendment phrase at the center of the dispute still awaits the Court’s ruling. For now, the term ended with the issue still on the docket and no final answer on how the justices will read that language.
