Newsweek: Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.

The case contests executive order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.

Why It Matters

The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.

With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.

What To Know

The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.

On July 18, the government’s deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.

According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration’s broader legal strategy.

The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.

“To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,” government attorneys wrote.

The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. “This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same,” the motion said.

On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional provision says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.

By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

What People Are Saying

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration’s approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: “Your argument … would turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

What Happens Next

If the Trump administration’s request for more time is approved, the government’s deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.

Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.

On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-grapples-birthright-citizenship-dilemma-2116126

Latin Times: Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it

Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

A new report has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a federal court filing in 2016 that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status when he was a Republican senator running for president, a position that now stands in sharp contrast to the executive order issued by Trump in January which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.

Rubio’s 2016 filing responded to a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth, he was not a “natural born citizen.”

As The New York Times points out, the court dismissed the case, but Rubio’s arguments went further than necessary, affirming that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that “all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.”

Rubio went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that “persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.”

Trump’s executive order, by contrast, states that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens if their mothers were either unlawfully present or only in the country on a temporary basis and if their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has been blocked in lower courts, but the administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.

Peter J. Spiro, a citizenship law expert at Temple University, told the NYT that Rubio’s earlier arguments remain significant and that “there’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order.” Rubio, now secretary of state, oversees the implementation of immigration and passport laws.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, dismissed the focus on Rubio’s past filing, saying he is “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda,” and claiming that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories.”

Rubio has faced backlash for his contrasting stances on issues affecting immigrants in the past few months, especially Latinos. A group called Keep Them Honest erected signs in May accusing him of betraying Venezuelans after supporting the administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. Rubio, once a leading Republican advocate for TPS, has recently called the designation harmful to U.S. interests and linked it to security threats.

https://www.latintimes.com/rubios-contradicting-arguments-birthright-citizenship-resurface-supreme-court-weighs-trump-order-588498

America Uncovered: What Trump’s Proposal Could Mean for the 14th Amendment

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-trump-s-proposal-could-mean-for-the-14th-amendment/vi-AA1HPtzp

Independent: Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says

Immigration authorities now say people seeking permanent lawful status through a citizen spouse or family member can still be removed

Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won’t be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card.

But new guidance from Donald Trump’s administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests.

Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month.

The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members.

People who entered the country illegally aren’t the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration.

Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them “should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,” the policy states.

The changes were designed to “enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns” and weed out what the agency calls “fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious” applications, according to USCIS.

“This guidance will improve USCIS’ capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,” the agency said in a statement.

Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are “effective immediately,” according to the agency.

Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member.

There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents.

Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them “should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,” the policy states.

The changes were designed to “enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns” and weed out what the agency calls “fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious” applications, according to USCIS.

“This guidance will improve USCIS’ capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,” the agency said in a statement.

Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are “effective immediately,” according to the agency.

Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member.

There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents.

Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress.

Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead.

Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data.

“This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,” Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News.

Under long-established USCIS policies, “no one expected” to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin “at any point in the process” under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could “instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,” according to Mukherjee.

Obtaining a green card does not guarantee protections against removal from the country.

The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech.

And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government “has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.”

“In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,” the agency said.

Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration’s plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum.

The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president’s executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth.

That memo, from the agency’s Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship.

But the agency “is preparing to implement” Trump’s executive order “in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,” according to July’s memo.

Children of immigrants who are “unlawfully present” will “no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,” the agency declared.

Trump’s order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship

USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission.

That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others.

The 14th Amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century.

But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president’s order.

A challenge over Trump’s birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to “expeditiously” ask the Supreme Court “to settle the lawfulness” of his birthright citizenship order later this year.

This is an abomination that will turn many thousands of lives upside down, separate countless couples and families who don’t have the resources to reunite and restart the immigration paperwork from overseas.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-uscis-green-card-deportations-married-immigrants-b2803296.html