Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Birthright Citizenship

The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments today in a case concerning former President Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. This case is part of a broader effort during the Trump administration to tighten immigration policies.

Background of the Case

In January of last year, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to deny citizenship to newborns in cases where neither parent has legal or permanent residency in the United States. This order has been blocked by lower courts, which found it “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law, according to a federal judge’s ruling in New Hampshire.

ACLU’s Perspective

Adriana Lafaille, a lawyer with the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU, emphasized the constitutional concerns surrounding the order.

Potential Impact on Massachusetts

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office estimates that “thousands” of babies born each year in the state could be denied citizenship if the Supreme Court allows Trump’s order to stand. A report by the National Demographics Corporation estimated approximately 4,200 babies were born in Massachusetts in 2022 to parents who were both noncitizens and lacked legal status.

Consequences of Denied Citizenship

Without citizenship, these children would face the constant threat of deportation and would be ineligible for legal employment, voting, and access to certain federal programs and services.

Financial Implications for the State

Attorney General Campbell and other Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit in February arguing that upholding the order would also negatively impact state finances. Federal funding for programs like Medicaid, foster care, and adoption assistance is tied to a state’s citizen population. States would also incur “considerable expense” to modify their programs to reflect the change.

Historical Context of Birthright Citizenship

While birthright citizenship has been the law in the U.S. for over a century, it is only automatically granted in just over 30 countries worldwide. Some nations have even eliminated it in recent decades. The concept has roots in colonialism, but became enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868 as a means of protecting newly freed slaves.

Related Supreme Court Ruling

In a separate 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversation therapy for minors illegally “regulates speech based on viewpoint.” This ruling sends the case back to a lower court and does not directly affect Massachusetts’ existing conversion therapy ban, but could be used to challenge similar laws in other states.

Attorney General Campbell’s Response

Andrea Campbell stated, “We are reviewing the Court’s decision, and I will continue using every tool available to stand firmly against any attempt to legitimize practices that put our young people at risk.”

State Representative Election Results

Andrew “Dru” Tarr won the special election for the 5th Essex District, replacing the late state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante. Tarr, a Gloucester Democrat, secured nearly 64% of the vote against Republican Christina Delisio. The district encompasses Rockport, Gloucester, Essex, and Manchester-by-the-Sea.