Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship in blow to Trump

This message comes from the Southern Environmental Law Center. No one voted for dirty air and water. That's why SELC is fighting back to defend the healthy environment everyone depends on. Because it's not political, it's fundamental. Learn more at selc.org. WBUR Podcasts, Boston. Individuals who are born in this country are entitled to and protect. by U.S. citizenship through our Constitution.

The Supreme Court rules in favor of birthright citizenship. It's Tuesday, June 30th, and this is here and now anytime from NPR and WBUR Boston. I'm Ashley Locke. Today on the show, having a hard time keeping up with all the new. out of the Supreme Court? We got you. I have the skinny on more big decisions you may have missed. And we'll break down today's ruling that states do have the right to exclude transgender athletes from girls and women's sports teams. What it does do is give more ammunition to the 27 states that have already passed laws banning trans girls from girls' sports. But first, justices

that even in this very conservative Supreme Court, which has rendered other decisions that have been heartbreaks, that we won so definitively as we did, six three by my count. We had five who argued, who agreed with us on the constitutional arguments, and then Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with us on the statutory argument. So all in six of the Supreme Court justices thought that President Trump went too far and put the guardrails on him. And so it was a huge win for us, probably the most significant case we've had in our 106-year history. Of the ACLU. We'll get to the split in the ruling in a minute, but in his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers of the 14th Amendment extended citizenship

to quote every freeborn person in this land. Let me ask, though, does this ruling close off any future challenges to birthright citizenship? I mean, of course, Congress could try to pass a constitutional amendment. Good luck to them. That's a lot of saber-rattling. I've seen the reports. I've seen the clips. You know, they'd have to bring a constitutional amendment.

Having one on constitutional grounds, the only way they can undo it is by passing an amendment, a constitutional amendment. So the way you do that is two ways, right? Through Congress, you can propose an amendment. You've got to get two-thirds of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by constitutional convention, two-thirds of the state legislatures.

That's to get it proposed. Then, to get it ratified, you need three quarters of the state legislatures. So good luck to them. I'd love to see them waste their gas trying to do that. They'll never get it done. You say that, Anthony, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority on the grounds that the executive order was not a violation of the Constitution, but a violation of congressional law.

He argued essentially that Congress today could redefine categories to whom the 14th Amendment applies. And President Trump seemed to pick up on Brett Kavanaugh's signal with the social media post in which he urged Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship and not bother with. all the fuss around trying to create a new amendment to overturn the 14th. What do you think? That has the value of zero in terms of precedent. You had five justices, the majority of the court, who ruled on constitutional grounds. So the only way they can fix it, unless they get five other justices in the Supreme Court to overturn the decision today, the only way they can fix it is through a constitutional amendment. So, I mean,

lots of things get said in dissents that don't have legal precedents or legal value. There are lots of dissents that we cite to all the time. I wish that the words of Sonia Sotomayor were law. But in the end, they are only dissents. What stands is a five majority ruling on constitutional grounds.

And the only way they can undo birthright citizenship would be through a constitutional amendment. Okay, Anthony, we have just a few seconds left. what this ruling means for undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, or those with temporary protected status who had children after coming to this country? Well, they can sigh a big cyber relief. I mean, it's one of the great wins, that the promise that if you're born here, you're an American, period, is a promise we will keep. It's a promise

backed up by the U.S. Constitution. It's a promise made again by a majority of this Supreme Court under John Roberts. And it's a major blow to Donald Trump. It was one of his first executive orders. Thank you. We'll have to leave it there. Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. Thanks so much.

Let's now bring a different perspective on this issue. Mark Corian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports more immigration restrictions. Mark, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. Briefly, your top line reaction to today's ruling? Well, the president was never going to win this case. I mean, something as basic as our practices with regard to citizenship can't be changed just by executive order.

That was never going to happen. The issue was, was the door left open for democratic decision making? In other words, could Congress change the rules if they chose to do so? And that's what the 5-4 majority said no. And so this wasn't just a loss for the president. He was going to lose anyway. This was a loss for Democratic decision-making because now the court has said that only through constitutional amendment can you change this. Now, the court's makeup could change too.

I mean, it was five, four, four justices said, you know, supported this. So, you know, I mean, if one justice dies or retires, there was replaced with someone. So it could end up before the court again. But in the meantime, it's going to lead to policy changes on the part of the administration, not so much changes necessarily, but increases the urgency for large-scale deportations, even if people who aren't criminals. Also is going to increase the urgency of preventing pregnant women from coming here as tourists. I mean, it's something that, you know, I'd rather not do, but when you can't be too open, when anyone, who comes here and has a kid, even if they take them home, you know, a month after they're born, are citizens.

So you see this prompting the kind of immigration rules of this administration and the implementation of them, they're going to get more strict as a response to this? Yeah, they're going to have to. And one concrete thing that people may not have thought of is that the application form for a tourist and business traveler visa, B1, B2 visa, is now going to have to ask, are you pregnant? That's something that, you know, they've been reluctant to deal with. You could be awkward. You know, I ask a woman, are you pregnant?

And she says, no, I'm just overweight or something. I mean, just something people aren't going to want to ask, visa officers. It's got to be on the form, though. And if you lie, then you've committed a crime. So there's going to be a lot of policy tightening up with regard even to foreign workers because of this decision. We just heard Anthony Romero of the ACL, you say, as far as the undocumented parents of children born in the U.S., they can sigh a big sigh of relief. How do you respond?

Well, the ones who are already, in other words, regarding kids who are already born, it doesn't matter anyway, because this would be something prospective for future kids born to illegal immigrants or tourists or foreign students or foreign workers. And the sigh of relief isn't really all that relevant, I don't think, because having a kid here doesn't give you any kind of legal right to stay. You know, it's a you, you people are deported all the time who have U.S. born children. And that's as it should be. It's unfortunate, but that's as it should be. In fact, as times have changed with advanced transportation and communications, the world is not the world that it was in 1866. and most other countries that had birthright citizenship, developed countries, have ended it. And they've ended it in different ways.

Sometimes they have a statute of limitations. So if the kid grows up there, then he becomes a citizen once he's 10 years old or 18 or whatever. But we're going to have to change this at some point. It's unsustainable. But for now, it's not going to be changed. Thank you. Mark Corcorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for more restrictions on immigration.

Mark, thanks so much. Thank you. Coming up next, Scott has more about another big case, this one involving transgender athletes.

This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks. MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details. The Supreme Court today ruled that schools can determine eligibility for sports based on biological sex. The case brought before the court focused on two transgender athletes who challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia that restrict the athletic participation of transgender women and girls in women's sports. Orion Rumler explains

they are a LGBTQ plus reporter for our partners at the 19th. All the justices, including the liberal justices, found that these state bans do not violate Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in schools, but only the conservative justices found that in Idaho and West Virginia

these bands did not discredit. discriminate against trans students additionally under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. So that was the conservative side only said that. Yeah. So, go ahead. Sorry. In terms of reasoning, it's been a busy day.

So the conservative justices said that it's reasonable to maintain separate sports teams based on sex at birth. They pointed to keeping competition fair and the risk of physical injury. but it must be noted that in this case, one of the trans girls in question, Pepper Jackson, transitioned before ever hitting puberty. So hormonally, she's not different from the girls her age. So then is it clear what the implications are? Is this now effectively a nationwide ban? No, this is not a nationwide ban. This ruling does not mean states have to ban trans girls from girls' sports.

What it does do is give more ammunition to the 27 states that have already passed laws banning trans girls from girls' sports. The way the ACLU put it today is that all the states that want to enact bans like this have already done so. We're not expecting new bans for that reason, primarily. But if a trans student is living in a state that has a ban like this, they have a smaller chance of being able to fight that ban if they have any chance at all. Now, these cases were brought by two athletes. So one of them is Lindsay Haycock's, a transgender woman. What did Haycox argue in her brief to the court?

Right. So Hecox, she's 24 now. She was originally participating in club sports when she was barred from playing. She was seeking to try out for women's track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho. You know, in her filing, she argues the Idaho band Swede. too broadly because it categorically excludes all trans women and girls. But it's in an interesting twist in this case, Hecox came to the Supreme Court in early September. She actually asked the justices to dismiss her case on the ground that it's mute.

That is, she decided on her own to no longer play sports in Idaho for a variety of reasons, like her father's death, her illness, and unwanted public attention from this case. So this is someone who kind of left this on her own accord after all this public controversy. Oh, interesting. So how did voices on either side of this debate react to today's ruling? So the National Education Association, they are worried that today's ruling will harm all students. The way they're reasoning there is they're concerned that cisgender girls, as well as trans students, athletes will, you know, be subject to, like, some, maybe invasive scrutiny about their gender,

how they look, you know, in these states that have already... Oh, in order to determine their eligibility for teams? Right. These advocacy groups are worried about how do these laws get enforced in these states? How are these kids' genders being scrutinized? That's kind of a big picture concern of theirs. And, you know, plenty of conservative politicians, Republicans, conservative groups are celebrating President Trump weighed in on true social today, apparently celebrating the decision. The way he put it is, quote, that takes that ridiculous situation off the table. Now, stepping back, the Supreme Court last year, let states ban puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors, people under 18. And for the advocates of transgender rights, what is the bigger picture here?

Right. So the ACLU, you know, they were involved in this case. They're saying that trans rights broadly are still intact. They're saying this was a narrow case in terms of being about these two states. The ACLU said today that the way they're think or one of their attorneys, Joshua Block, who is involved in this case, and his view, advocates' focus is going to shift to defending the lawfulness of inclusive policies and states that don't want to ban trans girls from girls' sports.

We've been talking to Orion Rumler, LGBTQ Plus reporter, for our partners at the 19th. Orion, thanks so much. Thanks so much, Scott.

Coming up, a roundup of more Supreme Court cases you don't want to miss during this flurry of a news cycle. This message comes from Granger. This is the story of the one. As a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility, he knows keeping the line up and running is a top priority. That's why he chooses Granger.

Because when a drive belt gets damaged, Granger makes it easy to find the exact specs for the replacement product he needs. and next day delivery helps ensure he'll have everything in place and running like clockwork. Call 1-800 Granger, click granger.com or just stop by, Granger, for the ones who get it done. Today, the Supreme Court struck down limits on political party spending. Ruling on ideological lines, they decided that campaign finance restrictions violate rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Yesterday, justices turned down President Trump's request for them to throw out the $5 million verdict against him after a jury found he had sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. That ruling stands. And last week, the court cited with the Trump administration, allowing them to block people from seeking asylum if they're at the border, but not technically on U.S. soil. Now, this policy is not in effect right now. President Biden halted it, but the Trump administration had sought the flexibility to bring it back. You can check out more expert analysis on the current Supreme Court term at here and now.org.

Here and now anytime comes from NPR and WBUR Boston. Today's stories were produced by Jill Ryan, Will Wachie, and Thomas Danielian. Today's editors were Todd Munt, Miguela Rodriguez, Michael Scato, and Kat Welch. Technical direction from Caleb Green and Matt Reed. Our theme music is by Mike Mascetto, Max Lehman, and Chris Bentley. Our digital producers are Allison Hagan and Grace Griffin. Herein now's executive producer is Alan Price. Thanks for listening.

I hope you find some whimsy on this beautiful summer day. Back with you tomorrow. The