The administrator of Trump asks the Supreme Court to reign over the order limiting citizenship of the right of birth

In June, the Trump administration filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to examine the executive order of President Trump restricting citizenship of the right of birth, a decision that could redefine a long-standing constitutional guarantee. This call has not yet been staged, but the judges are expected in the coming weeks to decide whether to hear the case, according to Fox News.

According to CNNThe file of the Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the dominant interpretation of the fourteenth amendment was “wrong” and had “destructive consequences”. Sauer wrote that decisions of lower land against the order gave incorrect “the privilege of American citizenship to hundreds of thousands of unskilled people”.

The challenge is to know if the United States will continue to recognize almost all children born on its soil as citizens, a principle that the Supreme Court has decided in “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” (1898).

The result could reshape the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship at practically all children born on American soil, regardless of parents’ status.

The Federal Court of Appeal weighs the Citizenship Citizenship of Rights Rights Trump because the administrator describes the details of the application

The demonstrators occupy a sign in favor of the citizenship of the dawn outside the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, June 27. (Alex Wroblewski / AFP via Getty Images)

John Eastman, who advised to write the order, praised the administration’s appeal. “Hourra for the Solicitor General Sauer for having quickly searched the examination of the Supreme Court of the decision of the ninth circuit blocking the executive order of President Trump restoring the initial sense of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment,” Eastman told Fox News Digital.

“People who have written and ratified this clause never intended to give automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors, and certainly not to the children of illegal foreigners. The historic file is clear, and I look forward to the Supreme Court to restore the initial meaning of the clause.”

Trump’s order seeks to reduce this interpretation to children of American citizens and legal permanent residents. If he is confirmed, he could deny the automatic citizenship of many children born in the United States each year.

In “Wong Kim Ark”, the court ruled that a man of origin from San Francisco whose Chinese parents were excluded from naturalization was nevertheless an American citizen under the 14th amendment. This decision cemented “jus soli” or citizenship by birth on American soil, with close exceptions for children of diplomats, foreign occupants and sovereign tribal nations.

Trump’s decree on citizenship of birth law blocked by another federal appeal judge in the last decision

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to examine an executive decree which would end the citizenship of the dawn, (Getty Images)

Critics of the decree argue that text and history are clear. UC Berkeley’s law professor John Yoo wrote that the editors have borrowed British traditions “jus soli” and that reconstruction legislators widen citizenship to ensure that the enslaved people and their descendants were fully included.

“It is simply out of doubt that the editors operated by borrowing and adopting common law principles … To adopt an interpretation that rejects this meaning, we would like to see historical evidence that the editors had adopted a radically new interpretation”, ” Yoo wrote.

The supporters of the order compress that the expression “subject to his jurisdiction” requires a complete and lawful political allegiance, and not simply born on American soil. John Eastman, who advised to write politics, argued that The Constitution requires both birth on American soil and “complete” jurisdiction. “Complete” means allegiance to the United States, not another sovereign.

The order has already been faced with several challenges. Federal courts initially blocked it with large injunctions, although the Supreme Court later reduced these decisions.

Trump’s decree on the citizenship of the right of birth has already faced multiple challenges. (AP photo / Jacquelyn Martin)

In a recent dissent, judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested that collective remedies could provide a way to follow for the challengers, the drafting that “parents of children covered by the citizenship order would be well advised to quickly file the collective appeals … and the lower courts would be judicious to act quickly”.

“Each court to have examined this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional … We are fighting to make sure that President Trump cannot work on the citizenship rights of a single child,” said Cody Woffy, ACLU lawyer after the June petition.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“This decree is directly opposed to our constitution, values ​​and history, and it would create a permanent and multigenic subclass,” added Devon Chaffee, executive director of ACLU-NH.

Karla McKanders, of the Legal Defense Fund, described the order of “an illegal attempt to strengthen racial hierarchies”, saying: “Citizenship is a right granted by birth, not by privilege”.

Fox News Digital asked for comments from the White House and Aclu and its partner organizations.