Trump’s Supreme Court is raising specters of racial division

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a contentious ruling that is raising specters of racial division, particularly concerning its implications for birthright citizenship and the foundational guarantee of the 14th Amendment. This landmark decision, stemming from the case of Trump v. CASA, directly intersects with an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump that aimed to end birthright citizenship—a measure widely regarded as unconstitutional and a direct challenge to the citizenship rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Instead of addressing the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial order head-on, the Court’s conservative supermajority opted to curtail the power of federal judges to issue universal injunctions. These powerful legal tools allow lower courts to block flagrantly unconstitutional policies from taking effect nationwide, granting relief not just to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit but to all affected. The six justices asserted that such rulings extend beyond what is necessary to provide full protection for individual plaintiffs, thereby limiting a critical check on executive actions.

Critics argue this ruling dangerously revives the spirit of the notorious Dred Scott decision, which historically denied citizenship to Black Americans. By allowing a potentially unconstitutional order to partially take effect, the Court’s decision creates a concerning precedent for a two-tiered system of citizenship. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a powerful dissent, warned that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates,” emphasizing the potential for this ruling to jeopardize not only birthright citizenship but a spectrum of fundamental rights in the future.

This decision represents yet another instance where the Supreme Court appears to enable executive overreach, especially at a time when the nation’s system of checks and balances is under profound strain. The ruling signifies a significant shift of power away from the judiciary and towards the executive branch, impacting the delicate balance of governmental authority. While Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion sought to reassure the public about the Supreme Court’s own overarching judicial power, many observers note that his individual assurance does not negate the broader implications of the court siding with executive authority over judicial oversight.

The ruling purports to leave alternative legal avenues for broadly challenging illegal actions, such as class-action lawsuits. However, as legal experts highlight, these alternatives are often cumbersome, expensive, and slow. They frequently face significant barriers erected by ideologically conservative judges, making them impractical for securing widespread relief from unconstitutional policies. This limitation underscores the practical difficulties citizens may face in challenging governmental actions effectively.

Ultimately, this complex ruling underscores the critical need for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. While the Supreme Court interpreted the Judiciary Act of 1789 through an originalist lens, Congress possesses the power to write new laws clarifying the extent of federal judges’ powers when confronted by executive branch lawlessness. Relying solely on the courts to safeguard constitutional rights amidst an evolving political landscape may prove insufficient.

As the Brennan Center for Justice continues to analyze the full implications of this ruling, the focus must shift towards comprehensive reforms. These reforms should aim to ensure that lawless presidents can be held accountable, alongside addressing crucial issues like campaign finance and voting rights. This moment calls for a renewed commitment to defending birthright citizenship and other constitutionally recognized rights, employing every available tool to ensure executive accountability and protect democratic principles.