Supreme Court Review - APC Item 10

Trump v. Barbara

Issue

In January 2025, only weeks into Trump’s second term, the President signed an Executive Order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” that sought to end birthright citizenship for U.S. born children of undocumented or temporary visa-holding parents. Several affected parents challenged this on behalf of their children, arguing that the Executive Order violated the 14th Amendment. 

Decision

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, ruling that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. 

Why it Matters

If Trump’s Executive Order had been successful, 4.8 million future U.S.-born children would have been denied automatic birthright citizenship by 2045. Furthermore, it would have created vulnerability for current U.S.-born citizens by opening the door to legal challenges to their birthright citizenship. This would have caused consequential systemic challenges and administrative chaos. The government would have had to stop recognizing certain state-issued birth certificates, creating confusion and concern. Millions of native-born Americans would have been forced to secure alternative documentation to prove their citizenship status for employment, passports, and voting.

The APC’s View

Birthright citizenship is not just a policy; it is a constitutional guarantee, enshrined in the 14th Amendment. The APC applauds SCOTUS' decision to uphold birthright citizenship and uphold this constitutional guarantee. We believe each person born in the United States deserves the certainty and opportunity that citizenship provides. Preserving this constitutional right provides stability for families and communities while ensuring equal opportunity under the law.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

Issue

In 2016, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) experienced a sharp increase in people seeking asylum at ports of entry along the southern border. The Department of Homeland Security claimed that processing capacity was overwhelmed and implemented metering. This directed CBP officers to turn away many asylum seekers who were waiting at ports of entry and tell them to remain in Mexico until space became available. Asylum seekers and the nonprofit Al Otro Lado sued, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires immigration officers to inspect any noncitizen who has "arrived in the United States" and permits them to apply for asylum.

Decision

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that noncitizens standing in Mexico at an official U.S. port of entry have not “arrived in the United States.”

Why it Matters

Consequently, border officials are not legally obligated to inspect or process asylum claims, and can turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border. The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority's interpretation disregards longstanding asylum law, strips protections from people fleeing persecution, and creates a loophole that undermines the Refugee Act of 1980 by allowing the government to block access to the asylum process.

The APC’s View

The APC echoes the dissenting opinion’s stance and views this ruling as a blow to asylum rights and a setback in immigration reform. People fleeing persecution should have fair access to the asylum process rather than being turned away indefinitely. We believe the solution to a strained asylum system is not to deny access, but to modernize it by expanding processing capacity, hiring more immigration judges and staff, and creating regional processing centers that allow claims to be resolved more quickly and fairly. The United States can maintain secure borders while honoring its humanitarian and legal commitments to those seeking protection.