What do you know about the issue of citizenship in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most proud cases in the history of the United States on Friday – whether a single federal judge can prevent the American president from entering throughout the country.

The case stems from President Donald Trump’s attempt to end the newly born citizenship, which has been frozen by several lower courts.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on the constitutionality of the coral citizenship itself. Instead, you will focus on federal judges’ use of restraining orders at the country level, which led to the stopping of the main aspects of the Trump business schedule.

The Trump administration has argued that the judges have exceeded their authority, but others say that the restraint orders are necessary to avoid “chaos.”

Live: Follow the BBC coverage of the Supreme Court decision

On his first day in his post, Trump signed an executive thing aimed at ending the rights of automatic citizenship for almost anyone born in American territory – known as “recovered citizenship.”

This step was immediately fulfilled through a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in the courts of provinces in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, which issued judicial orders at the country level and that prevented the matter from valid.

In Washington, the American District Court Judge John Kognor described Trump’s executive order as “starkly unconstitutional.”

The Ministry of Justice reported that the case did not call for a “extraordinary measure” for a temporary restriction and appealed to the case to the Supreme Court.

Zargian orders were a test of Trump during his second term, amid a wave of executive orders signed by the president.

Nearly 40 different judicial orders were submitted by the court this year. This includes two less trials that prevented the Trump administration from banning most of the sexual transites of the army, although the Supreme Court eventually interfered and allowed the application of politics.

Therefore, the case that is heard at the highest court in the country is not directly related to coral citizenship – but about whether the lower court should have the authority to prevent presidential orders at the country level by a judicial order.

The issue of restraining orders at the country level has long judges in the Supreme Court through the ideological spectrum.

Conservative and liberal judges have argued that the judge in one region should not be able to self -report the entire country’s policy.

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said in statements in 2022: “It cannot be right for one of the province’s judge to stop a policy at the level of the country in its paths and let it stop for the years that take it in the normal process.”

Likewise, Clarence Thomas, conservative judge Clarence Thomas, wrote that “comprehensively legal and historical orders are doubtful.”

The restraint orders are also criticized to enable what is known as the shopping in the forum – the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where there is likely to be a more convenient ruling.

Another criticism of the restraint orders is the speed that is delivered for its long -term effect.

The Trump administration discusses in the case of the newly born citizenship that the lower judges had no right to take a long time to take a long time in front of the Trump agenda.

Without judicial orders at the country level, supporters of this measure says that the authority of the executive branch can reach unanswered and leave the burden of protection from potential harmful laws on individuals who will need to file separate lawsuits.

Judicial orders are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump’s executive orders from taking an immediate legal effect. Such orders are a noticeable contrast of laws that pass through Congress, which take longer and put them in additional scrutiny.

Liberal justice, Kitanji Brown Jackson, said that the Trump administration’s argument called for “the judicial system if it could.”

Jackson said: “Your argument says:” We continue to do so until everyone who is harmful to discovering is how to file a lawsuit, employ a lawyer, etc.. ”

“I don’t understand how this is remotely consistent with the rule of law,” she said.

Another argument for restraining orders is that it allows consistency in the application of federal laws.

Lawyers who are discussing against the Trump administration said that in the case of citizenship in the field of newborns, there will be “chaos” in the absence of a judicial order at the country, which creates a system of citizenship.

The first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution clarifies the principle of consuming citizenship.

“All the people born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the country where they reside.”

However, the Trump administration’s arguments depend on the item in the fourteenth amendment, which reads “taking into account its jurisdiction.” He argues that the language excludes the children of non -citizens who are in the United States illegally.

Most legal scientists say President Trump cannot end the relevant citizenship with executive order.

In the May 15 session, Judge Kagan indicated that the administration has been lost in the case of the relevant citizenship in every less court and asked: “Why will this issue take us?”

In the restrictions of the country, judges can say that the restraint orders can only apply to the people who filed a lawsuit, including collective measures, as the government lawyers called.

Judges can also say that restraint orders can only apply in cases where cases are brought, or that the restraint orders can only be issued to constitutional questions (such as the newborn citizenship).

Constitutional questions, though, are related to the largest part of the issues of restraining orders at the country that the Trump administration is attractive.

If the court rules restraining orders, the Trump administration can prohibit the ongoing citizenship of immigrant children who are not documented during the continuing court cases.

If the restraint orders are designed, it is possible that the individual court cases that challenge the matter of citizenship consumed on their way to the Supreme Court will work.

The Supreme Court can take a decision on the constitutionality of the hidden citizenship, but the judges indicated that they prefer a separate and complete hearing on the question.

They can also give indicators or hints in their written opinion about the way they tend to be on the issue of citizenship, without judging it directly.