A Lawmaker Fights for Birthright Citizenship — With or Without the Supreme Court

Support Us
© THE INTERCEPT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., talks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol after the last votes of the week on March 6, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
As the Supreme Court weighs whether to allow the Trump administration to massively restrict birthright citizenship, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., is attempting to use Congress's power of the purse to block the administration's attack on constitutionally protected rights.
In January, Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which would prevent children born in the United States and its territories from automatically becoming U.S. citizens if their parents are undocumented immigrants or on a temporary visa, such as a work or student visa.
Trump's order was immediately blocked by lower courts on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the case Thursday, Ramirez told The Intercept she will introduce a bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to carry out Trump's executive order and reaffirming birthright citizenship.
This issue is personal for Ramirez, who is the only member of Congress born to parents who were undocumented at the time of her birth.
'My mother and father fled poverty in Guatemala, and my mother was pregnant with me when she came to this country, and I was born in Cook County Hospital in the city of Chicago. I still live in the same community,' said Ramirez. 'The idea that [Trump] would call to question who's American and who's not — it's absolutely, very personal to me.'
Ramirez said it's clear that Trump's executive order isn't about immigration, it's about upholding white supremacy — a fact further evidenced by his administration's move to end temporary status for Afghan and Haitian immigrants, then immediately offer refugee status to white South Africans. 'It's pretty blatant that this is an attack that is seeded on white supremacy and racism,' she said.
Read Our Complete Coverage
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court involve a case challenging several lower court decisions blocking the executive order from going into effect nationwide.
The Trump administration is arguing that lower court judges don't have the power to issue nationwide injunctions and that these rulings should be limited in scope, if possible, to the specific people who brought cases. Five pregnant women in Maryland brought cases against the Trump administration, fearing for the citizenship status of their future children.
The administration is also challenging the ability of states to bring these cases on behalf of their residents. Four states have brought lawsuits against the administration's executive order: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
The consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in this case could prove wide-ranging for civil liberties in the United States and challenges to the Trump administration's sweeping agenda, legal experts said.
'No national injunction means that either we get checkerboard justice, where rights exist in some places and not in others,' said Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, 'or we get this huge tax on the organizations that are trying to vindicate [these] rights that makes them litigate all over the place.'
Schlanger said the court may decide to weigh-in on the substantive issue of birthright citizenship, focus on the issue of nationwide injunctions, or both.
Sam Erman, another professor at the University of Michigan Law School, thinks it's 'highly unlikely' the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on birthright citizenship at this stage. Erman noted that the court has not had a full briefing on the issue of birthright citizenship. 'It would be a very hurried decision if they did it,' he said, 'and one where they would be sort of stripping themselves of a bunch of resources.'
There's also the fact that this is largely considered a settled legal issue. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court established that children born in the United States to children of noncitizens are citizens. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, is largely considered settled precedent.
'It's a pretty decided issue that the Supreme Court has itself basically presumed the result without giving it much thought in prior cases,' said Erman. 'The Supreme Court's precedent pretty much settles it. The history is all in one direction on it. The text is pretty clear.'
But as shown by the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, legal precedents can fall, said Kailin Wu, an attorney at Haynes Novick Kohn Immigration in Washington, D.C. 'The court is looking at opportunities to review previous decisions a lot more often now than they have been in the past, 'said Wu. 'I'm not going into oral arguments on Thursday feeling confident that this is going to come out in favor of maintaining the status quo.'
Erman said it will also be worth watching how the court handles the secondary legal issue of nationwide injunctions.
'Some justices have been signaling for a while that [nationwide injunctions] ought to be reined in in some way,' said Erman. 'And this seems like a possible moment to do that.'
'One thing that's at stake is the separation of powers between the different branches of government.'
On the flip side, justices could be concerned about maintaining the balance of power between the judiciary writ-large, Congress and the presidency. 'One thing that's at stake is the separation of powers between the different branches of government,' said Erman. 'In theory, it should be up to Congress to change the statutory scheme that grants birthright citizenship at birth, and it should only be the Supreme Court that gets to say what the constitutional law is.'
Erman notes that outright banning nationwide injunctions, in this case, would get 'messy fast.'
'If they were to say, 'Well, now this only applies in the district where you filed,' you would suddenly have people filing in every district in the country all at once,' he said, 'or if you said this only applies to the individuals who filed, you'd get a flood of lawsuits by individuals seeking the same treatment.'
This scenario, Schlanger said, would make it significantly harder for organizations to fight for civil rights because they would have to battle in every jurisdiction — potentially leaving the United States with a patchwork of different citizenship rules.
'There will be a bunch of states in which courts have said the birthright citizenship EO is illegal or ineffective … and then there will be other districts, other states, where that hasn't happened,' she explained. 'So you have different rules governing the citizenship rights of newborns depending on what state they were born in.'
Wu said that his clients living in the U.S. on work visas are terrified about what the Trump administration's executive order could mean for their families. For example, Wu said that his clients on H-1B visas are sometimes here for 15 to 30 years before they receive their green cards. Now, it's unclear what could happen if they end up having children.
'Are their kids automatically going to get a [visa]? Are they going to need to apply for that? I think there are a lot of questions,' said Wu. 'You may end up in scenarios where people who are here on temporary status and who have kids who are born here are inevitably going to leave at some point.'
Legal scholars said to watch whether justices ask more about birthright citizenship or nationwide injunctions as an indicator of which issue they're more likely to address. And as always, all eyes are on Chief Justice John Roberts, who is widely considered to be a swing vote on these issues.
However, Erman said, regardless of how the justices eventually rule, it shouldn't be seen as an indicator that the Supreme Court is on the side of people fighting the administration.
'The administration is on very weak substantive ground here,' said Erman,'and so were the courts to uphold what the administration is trying to do. That's a strong signal that they're going to be, I think, deferential to lots of claims by the administration.'
In Congress, Ramirez isn't holding out hope that her Republican colleagues will help her protect birthright citizenship. 'I've had some off-the-record conversations with a couple of them, who said, 'No, that's absolutely crazy, if you were born here, you're a United States citizen,'' she said. 'But the problem is, that has not actually been lived out in remarks or public statements.'
Still, Ramirez thinks it's important to take a stand for this fundamental right.
In addition to affirming the constitutional right of all children born in the United States to automatically obtain U.S. citizenship, the bill uses Congress's spending powers to block the administration's actions.
The legislation would prohibit any federal funds from being used to carry out Trump's executive order. So even if the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could move forward implementing the executive order, his administration would be blocked from using federal funding to create new systems to identify who is or isn't a citizen, change someone's citizenship status, or deport them. If Ramirez's legislation can pass in the House and find backing in the Republican-controlled Senate, it would render Trump's campaign against birthright citizenship an order in name only.
'We're going to have a strong showing. Over 100 members of Congress are original co-sponsors to this bill,' said Ramirez. 'People are really riled up to fight back and understand that attempting to erode birthright citizenship is literally attempting to erode our democracy itself.' Join The Conversation

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

30 minutes ago

• CBS News

Israel says 21 people wounded as Iran fires dozens of missiles following U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities

Tel Aviv, Israel — Iran launched a wave of missiles at Israel on Sunday morning, wounding at least 21 people — four of them seriously, paramedics said — after the U.S. joined Israel's week-long attacks on the Islamic Republic's nuclear sites. Iranian missiles made impacts in four sites across Israel: in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Be'er Yaakov and Nes Ziona, according to Israel's Magen David Adom emergency response service. Searches were underway for people believed to be trapped under the rubble of a collapsed building in Tel Aviv, local media reported. The Israel Defense Forces told CBS News that Iran had launched about 30 missiles at Israel. Israeli security forces and first responders gather at the site of an Iranian strike that hit a residential building in the Ramat Aviv area in Tel Aviv, June 22, 2025. JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images circulating on both Israeli television and social media platforms showed serious damage to buildings, as well as injured people being rescued by first responders. The IDF said in a statement that during the missile barrage, no alert sirens had gone off in Haifa, despite there having been an impact from a missile there. "The possibility that there was an issue with the interceptor is being looked into," the IDF said, referring to its missile defense systems. "There was no malfunction in the alert system and a previous warning had been issued to the area." The Iranian assault took place hours after President Trump announced that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites: Isfahan and Natanz, and the well-fortified Fordo enrichment facility. In a briefing in Washington on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. operation, called "Midnight Hammer," used seven B2 bombers carrying bunker-busting bombs to attack Fordo and Natanz. It struck Isfahan, which had already been heavily bombed by Israel in previous days, with Tomahawk missiles launched by submarines. Since the beginning of Israel's "Operation Rising Lion" against Iran, its National Public Diplomacy Directorate says Iran has fired over 450 missiles at Israel and 400 drones. 24 people in Israel have been killed in Israel, all of them in the early days of Iran's retaliatory attacks last week. As of Friday, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists in Iran, which relies on a network of contacts in the country, said 722 people had been killed in the country by Israel's strikes, with the attacks hitting 25 of the Islamic Republic's 31 provinces.

Politico

30 minutes ago

• Politico

Israel is not dragging America into war with Iran, its president says

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said Sunday Israel is 'not dragging America' into a war with Iran after President Donald Trump announced he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We are leaving it to the decision of the head of, the president of the United States and his team,' he said on CNN's State of the Union, 'because it had to do with America's national security interest, period. We are not intending and we don't ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel. The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all of the free world.' Despite Trump claiming in an address to the nation Saturday night that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'completely and totally obliterated,' Herzog told host Kasie Hunt he could not say whether this was the case, instead claiming that the sites had been 'hit very hard, both by the Israeli attacks and absolutely by the American attack overnight.' Herzog also said that while Israel was not actively working toward a regime change in Iran, it would be a 'very blessed' outcome. 'After all, this regime is a very oppressive regime,' he said. Herzog reminded Hunt that he is the head of state in Israel, but noted that his authority was limited; it is the Israeli Security Cabinet led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that oversees war planning. He said he did not know the 'exact details' of communication between Trump and Netanyahu, but that there was 'a very close and intimate dialogue' between the two. Israel and Iran have exchanged strikes for over a week, with Iran firing dozens of missiles at Israel on Sunday. Iran threatened to retaliate against the U.S. for its airstrikes, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warning of 'everlasting consequences' and saying he does not know 'how much room there is left for diplomacy.'

CBS News

32 minutes ago

• CBS News

Sen. Lisa Murkowski on navigating Washington under Trump, her place in the GOP, and her new memoir

For Senator Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, the last frontier, is her favorite frontier. The third generation Alaskan is as familiar in the halls of Congress as she is on an Alaska Airlines flight (where even the flight attendants call her "Lisa") as she flies home nearly every weekend to America's northernmost state. Each day is packed with constituent meetings. The state's senior senator says it's what keeps her connected to the needs of Alaskans, from the high cost of living and childcare, to the shortage of housing. She writes about being a moderate in a polarized Washington in her new memoir out this week: "Far from Home: An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, D.C." The book jacket shows Murkowski bundled in a parka (lined with wolverine, beaver and fox) on the steps of the Capitol building. "I had brought my parka back to Washington, D.C. for the inauguration, because we knew it was going to be cold – We're gonna take a picture in the snow, wearing the parka with the Capitol," she said. Forum Books After a career as a lawyer and state legislator, Murkowski came to Washington in 2002 when her father appointed her to fill his Senate seat after he was elected Alaska's governor. She faced charges of nepotism, which Murkowski calls "accurate." She was ultimately elected to a full-term. Each election has been a challenge, but none as difficult as in 2010, when she was primaried by the Tea Party … and lost. Then, she made the difficult decision: run a write-in campaign, with a challenging last name. "Nine letters," she said, "and it had to be spelt right. Because we weren't sure how the courts were going to interpret it, if it was 'Murkowsky' with a y at the end instead of an i, was that going to be sufficient to count?" She won, giving Murkowski what she calls "a new freedom." She said that winning independently of a party's backing reminded her of the idea that she had the support of her constituents to do what she thinks is morally right. "It absolutely reinforced that," Murkowski replied. "It's a daily reminder of how I was returned to the United States Senate. It was not through the help or the assistance of the Republican Party; it was through the hope and the assistance and the persistence of Alaskans all across the board." Asked about her allegiance to the Republican Party today, Murkowski said, "I still have the same Republican values that I have long held. But my allegiance is not to the Republican Party. It's not to a party. It is to the people who returned me. And those people were Republicans and Democrats and independents and nonpartisans. So, when people back here in Washington talk about 'I need to answer to the base,' my base is so beautiful and diverse and eclectic and genuine." Murkowski never voted for Donald Trump. In February, following a flurry of executive orders from the White House, Murkowski warned her Republican Senate colleagues that Congress must not cede its authority over controlling government spending to the president. "Just to put it into context and be fair, I don't think that we should cede – we, the Congressional branch – should cede ground to anybody, not to the courts, not to the executive," she said. "I think we have a role to do. We cannot, whether it is with tariffs, whether it's with spending, whether it's the role of advice-and-consent, we have a role that is prescribed Under Article I of the Constitution. We need to take that seriously. "And I fear that what we're seeing more and more is a Republican conference in both the House and the Senate that may agree with the goals of President Trump, and so, they're good with however we get there. But we need to ask ourselves: If this was President Biden or if this were to be a President Booker, how would we respond? Because I don't think we would just sit back and say, 'It's okay that you use that.'" CBS News' Norah O'Donnell with Sen. Lisa Murkowski. CBS News I asked, "You think there would be more oversight?" "I think there would," she replied. "If not oversight, at least feigned outrage. But we are basically saying, 'Whatever way you wanna get there is gonna be okay because we like the goal.'" "Is that a capitulation by the U.S. Congress?" "I think it's Congress not doing their job," Murkowski replied. Their job right now: Deciding whether or not to pass President Trump's so-called "big beautiful bill." With a lot of concern over hot-button issues like Medicaid, Senator Murkowski will likely be a deciding vote. Alaska relies more heavily on federal funding and programs than perhaps any other state in the country, so Murkowski knows the stakes for her constituents. "I realize that my job, number one, is to be effective for Alaska," she said. "I have to be aware that my effectiveness is going to be tied to relationships, right? And so, how I am able to develop relationships in an administration where it is no secret that I did not support the president, and it's also no secret that the president did not support me. He actively campaigned against me in the state. But, at the end of the day, he won, I won." READ AN EXCERPT: "Far From Home" by Lisa Murkowski For more info: Story produced by Julie Morse. Editor: Jason Schmidt.