Supreme Court collides with Trump

President Donald Trump is heading into the final weeks of the Supreme Court’s term with major cases still pending over birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission and protections for immigrants from Haiti and Syria. Reuters reported on May 20 that the justices are expected to decide four major Trump-related cases by around the end of June. At the same time, lower federal courts have continued to reject the administration’s effort to impose mandatory ICE detention without bond on broad categories of immigrants. The result is a two-level legal fight, with the Supreme Court weighing disputes central to Trump’s agenda while trial and appeals judges keep narrowing one of his most aggressive immigration policies. ### Which Trump cases are still waiting at the Supreme Court? Reuters reported on May 20 that the pending cases involve Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, oust a Federal Trade Commission member and end protected status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Haiti and Syria. The court’s next opinion day was scheduled for Thursday, Reuters said. April 1 was the date of arguments in the birthright citizenship case, and Reuters said several justices signaled skepticism about Trump’s executive order. Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis told Reuters there were likely to be “a series of losses” for the administration, though he also said those could be outweighed by other wins the administration has received on the court’s emergency docket. ### Why is the birthright citizenship case getting so much attention? Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order on the first day of his second term, directing agencies not to recognize citizenship for some children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, Reuters reported. The order is one of the administration’s highest-profile immigration moves. The 14th Amendment is at the center of that dispute. Reuters said the case asks whether Trump’s directive conflicts with the Constitution’s citizenship clause and a federal statute that codifies birthright citizenship. Kreis told Reuters that none of the three justices Trump appointed in his first term — Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — appeared enthusiastic about the administration’s position during arguments. ### What exactly are judges rejecting in the ICE detention cases? ICE adopted the detention policy last July, according to POLITICO and Reuters, after the Department of Homeland Security and the Board of Immigration Appeals embraced a broader reading of a 1996 immigration law. That interpretation treated many immigrants already living in the United States as subject to mandatory detention without bond while deportation cases proceeded. Reuters reported on April 28 that the policy had been used against people arrested in the administration’s immigration crackdown, including some who had lived in the country for years. Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee on the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in an April 28 ruling that accepting the administration’s reading would create “the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens,” according to Reuters. In that case, the court upheld relief for Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian man arrested while driving to work after living in the United States for more than 20 years, Reuters said. ### How broad is the lower-court pushback? POLITICO reported on May 13 that judges had ruled against ICE detention practices in roughly 90% of decided cases, with nearly 10,400 losses for the administration and about 1,200 wins. The outlet said more than 425 judges had rejected the government’s position, including a majority of Trump-appointed judges who had ruled frequently on the issue. May 24 brought a more detailed look from POLITICO at the judges driving those numbers. The outlet said hundreds of judges had rejected the detention expansion, producing nearly 10,800 rulings against the administration as of May 15. Clay Land, a George W. Bush appointee in Georgia, had ruled against the administration more than 370 times, POLITICO said, while judges in western Michigan also accounted for hundreds of adverse rulings. ### Have appeals courts agreed with one another? The federal appeals courts have not lined up on one side. Reuters reported on April 28 that the 2nd Circuit broke with earlier appellate rulings that had favored the administration. POLITICO reported on May 6 that the 11th Circuit then also rejected ICE’s position, with Judge Stanley Marcus writing that the law did not give the executive “unfettered authority” to detain without bond every non-admitted immigrant present in the country. The 5th and 8th Circuits have supported the administration’s interpretation in divided rulings, POLITICO reported, while the 7th Circuit deadlocked. That split has increased the chances that the detention issue itself will reach the Supreme Court. ### What comes next in the courts? Late June is the immediate deadline for the Supreme Court’s current term, and Reuters said the justices are expected to resolve the four major Trump-related cases by around then. Meanwhile, POLITICO reported that additional federal appeals courts were likely to rule on ICE detention in the ensuing weeks, adding to a circuit split that already points toward eventual Supreme Court review.