The United States Supreme Court is wrestling with judicial orders at the country to stop the presidential directives in the citizenship case

The US Supreme Court began to hear the arguments on Thursday in the attempt of Donald Trump to enforce his extension on a large scale to reduce the nationality of birth, a step that would affect thousands of children born every year as the Republican President seeks a major shift in how the United States constitution has long been understanding.

Judges are considering the emergency request in the administration to expand the scope of restraining orders issued by federal judges in the state of Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts, preventing Trump’s direction at the country level. Judges have found that Trump’s order – a major part of his hard -line approach to immigration – is likely to violate the language of citizenship in the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.

Trump’s order was stabbed by the Democratic Public Prosecutor of 22 states, as well as individual pregnant immigrants and immigrant rights advocates.

The issue is not used to the fact that the administration has used it to say that federal judges lack the authority to issue “global” orders at the country, or “global”, and asked the judges to judge this way and to impose Trump’s direction even without weighing its legal advantages.

The American Attorney General, Dr. John Sawir, who is arguing in the Trump administration, with the increasing use by comprehensive orders “pathology”.

Comprehensive orders have become increasingly controversial and contradicted in recent years by the Republican and Democratic Administration. Judges often hindered Trump’s aggressive use of executive orders and other initiatives this year, and sometimes they employ global judicial orders.

Other prosecutors and critics said that Trump’s direction is the ideal example of the case that judges must keep the global relief power, even if this authority is reduced by the Supreme Court.

Various interpretations of the rise in restraining orders at the country level

There were 17 judicial orders in the country in the first two months of Trump’s presidency, more than Joe Biden (14 years), Barack Obama (12) and George W. Bush (6), according to the American Progress Center. During Trump’s first presidency, according to the same liberal suffocating, there were 64 judicial orders worldwide.

Clarence Thomas, the conservative judge, agreed with Sauer that comprehensive orders “have spread over the past three decades or so.”

Many Republican lawmakers and politicians argue that these numbers are evidence that the legal system has been “armed” against Trump, while Democrats should have to increase the fact that no newly -boundary president has experienced more than Trump.

The case is intertwined with the concerns of the “shopping judge”, where the groups of interests and plaintiffs of all kinds submit lawsuits before judges who are considered political or friendly allies for their reasons. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Federal Courts Policy Industry Authority, was In the process of issuing the guidance To reduce this practice.

Trump’s executive order in this case is the federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who have no parents, an American citizen or a permanent legal resident, also known as the “green card”.

In 2018, the Institute of Migrant Policy was estimated that approximately 4.4 million children born in the United States have at least one father, an illegal immigrant.

Prosecutors argued that Trump’s directing violated the fourteenth amendment. Citizenship clause stipulates this amendment that all people born or evident in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction, are citizens in the United States and the country where they reside. “

The fourteenth amendment exceeded a bad decision in the Supreme Court in 1857 called Dred Scott V. Sandford who denied the nationality of black and helped fuel the civil war. The amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the civil war during the post -slavery era in the United States.

Britain and Australia in the 1980s amended their laws to prevent the so -called birth tourism, which requires the father to be a permanent citizen or resident in order for the newborn to qualify for citizenship.

The Nationality Law in Canada and the court rulings over the years – including one Involving the child of Russian spies The principle that citizenship is granted on a flat basis instead of the citizenship of his parents.

The official argues that the rules of citizenship can vary by the state

Liberal justice, Sonia Sotomoor, said it believed that Trump is violating many of the supreme court precedents of citizenship. Sotomoor said that if Trump enters into force, thousands of children will be born in the United States without citizenship, which makes some of them without citizenship.

More than 150,000 newborns will be rejected annually if Trump is allowed to stand, according to the prosecutors.

The administration claims that the category item does not extend to the country illegally or immigrants who are legal but temporary, such as university students or those who receive work visas.

Liberal justice, Elena Kagan, said that without a global judicial order, it may take Trump, it may take years before the Supreme Court finally decided the legitimacy of the country.

“There are all kinds of violations of restraining orders at the country level. But I believe that the question that this issue offers is that if one believes that it is completely clear that (the executive) is illegal, how can one reach this time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of obtaining a rod at the country level?” Kagan Sawir asked.

Saur pointed out that after the dispute leaks in the minimum courts, the Supreme Court can eventually pronounce the legal advantages of politics, prompting conservative judge Amy Barrett to express doubt.

“Will you really answer Judge Kagan by saying that there is no way to do so quickly?” Barrett said.

Sotomayor compared Trump’s direction to a virtual currency by a president who robs guns from every American who owns one, despite the right of the second amendment to keep the weapon.

Sawyer said that these restraining orders go beyond the judicial authority granted under Article Three of the Constitution and disrupt the “constitutional constitution to separate the authorities” between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the American government.

The administration seeks to narrow the restraint orders to apply them only to individual prosecutors and the 22 states, if judges find that countries have a legal status required to prosecute. This can allow politics to effectively in the 28 countries that have not been charged, regardless of which prosecutors who live in those states.

The requesting prosecutor of New Jeremy Jeremy Vejanbum, the lawyer who argues in the states, requested the judges to reject the administration’s request. Feigenbauum said that the irregular order issued in the lawsuit filed by the states is properly designed to address a “great and sovereign pocket book” that they will face from Trump’s work.

Feignbauum said that the administration’s approach to litigation “will require citizenship to differ based on the country in which it was born.”

“Since the fourteenth amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to differ based on the country where a person resides,” said Vegagnabum.

Feigenbauum also pointed out that the legal case surrounding Trump’s executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago.

The 1898 Supreme Court ruling has been explained in a case called the United States against Wong Kim Arac for a long time as ensuring that children born in the United States for non -citizen parents have the right to obtain American citizenship.