What Clarence Thomas Thinks About the 14th Amendment as Trump Seeks Changes

-

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has earlier expressed approval for the citizenship clause in the U.S. Constitution.

The clause serves as the foundation for birthright citizenship , which President Donald Trump is difficult when taken up by the Supreme Court .

Why It Matters

The ability of individuals born in the U.S. to assert their American citizenship has been an essential right for more than a century.

Should the Supreme Court's conservative majority overturn this right, it would permit the Trump administration to remove the offspring of undocumented immigrants.

https://5.180.24.3/ requested email comments from Justice Thomas' office on Friday.

What To Know

On his inauguration day for a second term, President Trump issued an executive order instructing federal agencies not to provide birthright citizenship documents unless at least one of the baby’s parents was either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

Immigration organizations and states with leanings towards Democrats promptly initiated a cascade of legal challenges.

On March 13, the Trump administration initiated multiple urgent pleas to the Supreme Court seeking a partial suspension of judicial decisions that had blocked his executive order concerning birthright citizenship. The administration contended that the courts incorrectly interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with these rulings.

The Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority must be persuaded that the 14th Amendment, ensuring citizenship for individuals born within the U.S., doesn’t extend to the offspring of undocumented immigrants.

Clarence Thomas, who holds the most conservative viewpoint among the Supreme Court justices, examined the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. In the 2022 instance of U.S v. Vaello-Madero .

In this case, Thomas concurred with the majority opinion that Supplemental Security Income benefits are not provided to residents of Puerto Rico due to their birthplace outside the U.S.

He stated that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment put an end to the injustices upheld by the Supreme Court's ruling in 1857. Dred Scott, where the ruling stated that individuals held as slaves could not become citizens, regardless of being born within the U.S. borders or relocating to free states.

"Upon being included in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Citizenship Clause ‘permanently locked the door on Dred Scott He stated, citing the 2014 publication, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Rights of American Citizens .

He similarly highlighted Justice Bradley's view in the 1873 Slaughter-House Case: "When a person is deprived of complete legal equality, they are being stripped of fundamental rights inherent to them as a U.S. citizen."

Thomas proceeded to highlight Justice Harlan's 1896 dissent. Plessy v. Ferguson , where Harlan opposed the separated train cars.

Harlan’s renowned statement highlights the link between being a citizen and enjoying equality: 'Our Constitution does not see color and acknowledges no class distinctions among citizens. Regarding civil rights, all citizens are treated equally under the law,' Thomas stated.

This implies that Thomas strongly believes the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause encompasses everyone born within the U.S., irrespective of their racial background or legal standing.

What People Are Saying

Greg Germain, who teaches law at Syracuse University located in New York notes space for Thomas and other conservative justices to potentially side with Trump, as the 14th Amendment was crafted to rectify the unjust treatment of African Americans in the U.S., not to handle the circumstances of unauthorized immigrants and their offspring.

Germain stated that Trump's legal team will need to concentrate on the second part of the citizenship clause, contending that children born in the U.S. to parents who entered illegally are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the country.

"It appears this issue may eventually require resolution from the Supreme Court. Trump could contend that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction' carries significance and ought to be interpreted as a restriction on birthright citizenship," Germain explained. https://5.180.24.3/ .

The Supreme Court needs to determine if children of illegal or temporary residents are eligible, and whether an executive order interpretation instead of a statute holds up.

"I believe, based on my assessment, that the Supreme Court would likely support Trump's directive regarding undocumented immigrants," he stated.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is expected to convene a hearing within the next few days.

Given this is an urgent appeal, it will be processed quickly without any oral arguments and with restricted opportunities for submitting additional paperwork.

Following a short ruling, probably unsigned by any Supreme Court justice, the court would most likely proceed to a comprehensive hearing including oral arguments, enabling them to thoroughly address and resolve the matter at hand.

Related Articles

  • Judge Chutkan Delivers Setback to Elon Musk's DOGE TokenName
  • Supreme Court May Rescue Trump's Political Agenda, Analyst Says
  • Could the Supreme Court Revoke Birthright Citizenship? Here’s What You Should Understand
  • Trump Seeks Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Issue

Start your unlimited https://5.180.24.3/trial

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Paradise Islands Offer Citizenship for Less Than £36,000

-
Image
Didn't you catch wind of it? For only $105,000, you can purchase citizenship to a tropical island paradise these days. The island country of Nauru located in the Pacific is offering passports to foreign nationals for $105,000 (£81,000) as part of an effort to generate funding for its climate emergency reserve. Soaring sea levels are swiftly eroding Nauru’s coastlines. In reaction, the nation’s leadership is considering a large-scale move inland; however, they are facing difficulties in securing funding for this initiative. Approximately ninety percent of the island's inhabitants will likely have to relocate to elevated areas due to sea levels surrounding Nauru increasing at a rate one point five times quicker than the worldwide average. Many nations provide citizenship in return for significant financial investments or property purchases. However, certain options may stand out specifically to wealthy Britons looking for opportunities. In fact, several stunning t...
Read more

Australian Grand Prix Fences Go Black for Clever Reason

-
Image
The 2025 Australian Grand Prix introduces several modifications to the circuit, primarily focusing on Turn 6 where Mercedes' George Russell had a crash in the previous year. However, the track authorities have implemented an additional alteration. The fencing along the Melbourne street race course has been painted black, particularly in the region of the starting grid. This minor alteration significantly enhances visibility for both spectators with tickets and photographers, despite its subtle nature. The cause stems from how light reflects off the metal. Black paint helps with this by absorbing the light, thus making it simpler to maintain visibility. Formula One tracks have consistently needed to address the visibility and safety of spectators holding tickets. Essential safety features include barrier walls and catch fencing, which protect not only the audience but also racers themselves. Take, for instance, Zhou Guanyu’s accident at Silverstone in 2023; without the p...
Read more

Bill Passes Just Hours Before Deadline, Averts Shutdown and Defeats Filibuster

-
Image
On Friday, senators moved forward with the stopgap funding measure approved by the House as the clock ticks nearer to a potential government closure. With a vote of 62 to 38, the senators decided to move forward with the proposal. Almost all Republicans along with ten Democrats helped override the filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer from New York Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin from Illinois, along with Senators Angus King of Maine, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Gary Peters of Michigan, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, voted to advance the bill, going against the majority of their fellow Democrats. The House-passed short-term A spending measure, referred to as a continuing resolution (CR), would maintain funding at FY 2024 levels up until October 1st. Nevertheless, should Congress fail to pass this legislation before 11...
Read more