Good morning. Passover begins at sunset. If you’re celebrating, I hope you have a meaningful Seder. (Either way, be careful: It’s April Fools’ Day.) Now, onto the news. President Trump said the U.S. could be out of Iran in a few weeks. He plans to address the nation tonight. A federal judge stopped construction on the new White House ballroom. And today, there is a major case before the Supreme Court.
Born AmericanIn a few hours the Supreme Court will hear arguments over President Trump’s plan to limit birthright citizenship. The case stems from an executive order Trump issued on his first day back in the White House meant to nullify a longstanding rule that granted citizenship to babies born in the United States, even if their parents were not citizens or permanent residents. That order was swiftly challenged in court and blocked by lower courts. Now the Supreme Court will consider whether the order is constitutional — meaning, does it square with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment? That clause is the amendment’s first sentence: “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.” It was adopted in 1868, to reverse part of the court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had held that Black people of African descent were not and could not become U.S. citizens. The language appears pretty clear. But mind this subclause of the clause carefully: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What those words mean will fuel the arguments of both the Trump administration and its challengers — lawyers representing children across the nation who would be affected. For the administrationFor more than 125 years, courts have interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction” as meaning nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. (There’s a narrow exception for the children of foreign diplomats and the children of enemy occupiers.) The Trump view, though, is that children of undocumented immigrants aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Why? Among other reasons, the revisionists say, it’s because their parents don’t owe allegiance to the U.S. but instead to the nations they left. Children of undocumented immigrants, they say, should thus be treated as we treat the diplomats’ children — born on U.S. soil, but under the flag of a foreign nation. Some conservative legal experts told The Times that the case might be closer to call than once thought. One of them said, “We had seen enough to convince us that this question was not open-and-shut, that conventional wisdom may not be correct and that the Trump E.O. has more going for it than people realized.”
What to watch forThe opposing view is that birthright citizenship is a matter of settled law and has nothing to do with the parents of the children who receive it. There’s no language about parents in the 14th Amendment. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mentions them only in the context of citizen children born outside the U.S. Both the amendment and the law use the same language: Anyone “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen. Adam Liptak, our chief legal affairs correspondent, wrote about that recently: “Whatever might have been the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, there is substantial evidence — in judicial decisions, legislative reports and executive practice — that Congress understood the 1952 law to guarantee birthright citizenship.” So yesterday I asked Adam what he’ll be watching most closely. Here’s what he told me: We’ll know whether the administration has a prayer of prevailing based on the early questions from the ideological middle of the court — the chief justice and the three Trump appointees. If they pepper the administration’s lawyer with skeptical questions, which seems likely, it will be a good bet that Trump’s long-shot revisionist theory is doomed. If they treat the lawyer’s arguments as presenting difficult problems of constitutional interpretation, the end of June, when the court issues the biggest decisions of the term, will be interesting. (Sign up for The Docket, Adam’s newsletter, which demystifies matters of law and justice.) A history of immigrantsOne last thing before court. As the justices prepared to hear this landmark case today, reporters for The Times took a close look at their family histories. In each, the reporters found newcomers to America — colonists, enslaved people and immigrants alike — who paved the way for a descendant to ascend to the highest court in the land. “These nine men and women will now sit in judgment of citizenship for their fellow countrymen,” they wrote. It’s a remarkable bit of journalism, built out of immigration and census records, ship manifests, biographies, memoirs and speeches related to the justices’ families, well worth reading as we wait for the arguments to commence. You can find it here. More from the courts
War in the Mideast
More on Politics
Around the World
Tonight, if the weather holds, the Artemis II mission will blast off from Florida, carrying humans around the moon for the first time in more than 50 years. What’s happening? Four astronauts will spend 10 days in a spacecraft with about as much interior space as two minivans. They’ll test the capsule for future missions, including some that could return humans to the moon’s surface. If the astronauts fly around the far side of the moon, they will be farther from Earth than a human has ever been. Who are the astronauts? They’re military pilots, engineers and all-around achievers. Read more about the mission. And listen to “The Daily,” which is about the launch.
Congress owes it to troops to hold the Trump administration accountable for the war in the Mideast, write Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta, former defense secretaries. Birthright citizenship “gets at the heart of American values and culture,” Padma Lakshmi writes, and the Supreme Court should uphold it. Morning readers: Save on the complete Times experience. Experience all of The Times, all in one subscription — all with this introductory offer. You’ll gain unlimited access to news and analysis, plus games, recipes, product reviews and more.
In the dunes: On Namibia’s Skeleton Coast, a writer found a blank canvas of constantly shifting sands. See more of the beautiful landscape. Hot dogs: Inflation is making Iceland’s beloved snack more expensive. People are still ordering it. Your pick: The most-clicked link in The Morning yesterday was about ways to improve brain health.
$5.89— That was the average price of a gallon of gas in California yesterday. Explore gas prices where you live.
|
