A Supreme Court of the United States I decided to comply with the administration request Donald Trump raise locks in minor ships in an attempt to limit Citizenship by birthThe decision that gives the president and can affect dozens of demands against the policy of the Republican.
With the six conservative majority against the three, the decision does not apply to the advantages of the decree itself, which seeks to limit the automatic law of American citizenship established in the Constitution, and deny it to children of unregistered parents or temporary visas.
Instead, the decision is limited to the jurisdiction of minor courts and the legality in their decisions to block the order of the executive branch.
In particular, he evaluates the temporary national locks of the Trump order by three federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts, who determined in separate decisions that the president has no authority to change or limit the Constitution.
According to the majority, a conservative judge Amy Koni Barrett He wrote that “federal courts do not carry out general supervision of the executive branch,” but “they decide cases and disputes in accordance with the powers granted by Congress.”
“When the court comes to the conclusion that the executive branch acted illegally, the answer is not that the court also exceeds its power,” said Barrett, one of the key votes in this decision, because during the presentation of the arguments in May he asked the Supreme Court to evaluate technical issues, and not the basis of the decision itself, which is that the Supreme Court is not pronouncing today.
The judge stated that the executive order of birth citizens, whose statement is in a temporary pause throughout the country, when cases are considered – “will not enter into force until 30 days after the date of this opinion.”
According to experts, this delay can offer a margin so that the applicants consider it collective requirements instead of individuals as another way to challenge the Trump order.
According to a study conducted by the Institute of Migration Policy, about 255 thousand children per year can affect. Minor experts of Trump and Lawyers note that this is a constitutional right to a built revival in amendment 14 and cannot be canceled by the presidential order.
Liberal judge Sonya Sotomayor On this Friday, he announced his inappropriate vote from Poda, which was considered very unusual, as a sign of his deep disagreement with the majority.
“The supremacy of the law is not perceived as granted either in this country or in any other. These are the commandments of our democracy, which will endure only if those who have sufficient courage, in each department (government), are fighting for their survival. Today, the court renounces its vital role in these efforts. ”
In her opinion on disagreement, liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson He insisted that the decision would allow the executive branch to violate the constitutional rights of all persons who are not appointed in accordance with the requirements, which, in their opinion, poses an “existential threat to the rule of law” in the United States.
Brown warned that, having posed these technical issues on the power of the courts before the Supreme Court, and not for the advantages of the executive order itself, the government seeks to put a “smoke curtain” for the implementation of “arbitrary and uncontrolled power, which the founders of the United States sought to eradicate with the Constitution”.
The restriction of automatic citizenship for children of irregular migrants has become one of the pre -election promises of the Republican, who returned to power on January 20 with red migration policy. Trump signed the order on the same day when he accepted his second term.
With information EFE
