Is the Supreme Court Unsure About Birthright Citizenship?

"When the Justices announced, on Friday, that they would hear him out, rather than simply turning the appeal down flat, they didn't give an explanation. It takes four Justices out of the nine to grant cert (the technical term for taking a case), but their motives might be mixed. Some conservative Justices may want to let the President down easy, with a display of deference before ruling against him, and some liberals may want the opportunity to come down hard in defense of the babies."

"All those possibilities would be preferable to another one: that a critical mass of Justices has become convinced that there is a question about birthright citizenship, and that they are willing to upend our long-shared understanding of what it means to be born an American. With this Court, at this moment, it would be reckless to ignore that prospect. Ted Cruz and eight other Republican senators have submitted an amicus brief that largely supports Trump's order; so have the attorneys general of twenty-four states."

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump v. Barbara, the appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down a January executive order declaring that many babies born in the United States are not citizens. The Court did not explain why it granted cert, leaving open motives among Justices who may be deferential or eager to defend birthright citizenship. A reversal could upend longstanding understandings of U.S. nationality. Republican senators and twenty-four state attorneys general filed amicus briefs largely supporting the order. Granting review risks creating the impression of doubt about automatic birthright citizenship even if the Court ultimately reaffirms it.

Read at The New Yorker