The right to have rights: Trump v. Barbara

Photograph: Al Drago/Getty Images

 The right to have rights: Trump v. Barbara 

    This past Tuesday was one for the history books. A case I never thought would become what it did took place in the Supreme Court, and it beat what could have been a major step back in discrimination laws.

    On June 30th, the Supreme Court witnessed Trump v. Barbara, a case against an executive order that would’ve changed what it means to be American. Birthright citizenship rights were at stake, and the Donald J. Trump administration intended to take them away from children born from undocumented or temporary immigrants. Under that executive order, children under these circumstances would be born stateless, and would not have what Chief Justice John Roberts defined as “the right to have rights–to freely participate in our political community.”

    The 14th Amendment from the United States constitution 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.” So clearly, the executive order that Trump tried to enforce fell short on constitutional value, going completely against the 14th Amendment.

    Naturally, we would think that the person in office would be the first one to emphasize enforcing the constitution, but this has not been the case. A president supposed to be for the people has denied his own people as his, and continuously tried to enforce the executive order that would set us years back, when Black people could not be citizens. This was the sole reason for the 14th Amendment to be written in the first place, to ensure the government could never again decide that a certain group of people were not “American enough”.

    The arguments intended to back the President’s order were implying that children of undocumented parents have split loyalties, suggesting that a child’s right to be American should hinge on their parents' legal "domicile" or political allegiance. This is exactly where the legal drama splits wide open. While the hardline dissenters like Justice Alito bought into this narrative, arguing that the 14th Amendment should only apply to those who owe "sole allegiance" to the country at birth, the majority of the Court flatly rejected this revisionist history. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. simply means you are on American soil and subject to its laws—period. By a 6-3 vote, the Court proved that the text of the Constitution cannot be twisted to fit political agendas.

    However, a closer look at the voting breakdown reveals a frustrating catch. While five of the majority justices firmly declared that birthright citizenship is a permanent, untouchable Constitutional right, Justice Brett Kavanaugh took a different, more bureaucratic route. He agreed that there is a federal law passed by Congress that says these babies are citizens. The President cannot just rewrite federal law with an Executive Order. Therefore, the President's order is illegal."

    He admitted it to be illegal, but only because the President overstepped his boundaries by overriding existing federal laws. By basing his decision on paperwork instead of the Constitution, Kavanaugh explicitly left a backdoor open, suggesting that Congress technically has the power to pass a law creating exceptions to birthright citizenship in the future. In plain English, he left us to read between the lines of this case a subtle “this isn’t over yet”, and we caught on to it loud and clear.

    The "split loyalties" argument was not entirely defeated—it was just sent to the wrong department. For now, the promise of the 14th Amendment stands, but it reminds us that our definition of belonging is always just one election or one congressional bill away from being challenged again.


For more articles like this, subscribe for free to Crucial Evidence down below.

This has been your author and expert witness.

Your girl,

Jimena Valle