As the Supreme Court considers whether to permit the Trump administration to impose significant restrictions on birthright citizenship, Rep. Delia Ramirez is working to leverage Congress's power of the purse to stop Trump in his tracks, The Intercept reported on Wednesday.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday, Ramirez revealed in an interview for The Intercept that she plans to introduce legislation that would block the use of federal funds to enforce Trump’s executive order while also reaffirming the principle of birthright citizenship.
 
The issue of birthright citizenship is personal to Ramirez herself, since she was born to immigrant parents who were undocumented at the time. 

“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,” Ramirez said, emphasizing that Trump questioning who is American and who isn't is "very personal" to her.

Ramirez argued that Trump’s executive order has little to do with immigration and everything to do with reinforcing "white supremacy", pointing to the administration’s decision to revoke temporary protections for Afghan and Haitian immigrants while simultaneously extending refugee status to white South Africans, calling it a blatantly racist attack.

Birthright citizenship, nationwide injunctions in question

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case that contests multiple lower court rulings that have prevented the executive order from being implemented across the country.

The Trump administration argues that lower courts can't issue nationwide injunctions and that rulings should only apply to the plaintiffs, like the five pregnant Maryland women who sued over their unborn children's citizenship status.

The administration is additionally disputing states' authority to file these lawsuits representing their residents, with Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon having challenged the executive order.
 
Legal experts warn that the Supreme Court's ruling could have broad implications for civil rights nationwide while shaping future legal challenges to the Trump administration's expansive policies.

“No national injunction means that either we get checkerboard justice, where rights exist in some places and not in others,” University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger told The Intercept, adding, “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 noted the court could address either the core question of birthright citizenship itself, examine the validity of nationwide injunctions, or potentially rule on both issues.

Related News

Democratic Senator moves to block unchecked US military action on Iran

MAGA rift deepens: Greene rebukes Republicans backing war on Iran

Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship now improbable

University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Erman believes it's improbable the Supreme Court will rule on birthright citizenship now, explaining that the justices haven't received comprehensive legal arguments on the matter and that such a rushed decision would leave them without proper analytical tools.

He added that birthright citizenship remains a settled legal principle since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision established citizenship for children born in the US to noncitizen parents, creating an enduring precedent that hasn't been seriously challenged. 

Legal precedents at risk

Kailin Wu, an attorney at Haynes Novick Kohn Immigration in Washington DC, cautioned that legal precedents are no longer guaranteed to stand, citing the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade as evidence, while noting the current Court's increased willingness to re-examine past rulings and expressing skepticism about Thursday's oral arguments preserving the existing interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Erman noted that the court's approach to nationwide injunctions will be another key issue to watch, observing that several justices have long hinted at needing to limit such injunctions and suggesting this case could present the opportunity to do so.

He also emphasized that the justices may also consider how their ruling could impact the delicate distribution of authority among the judicial branch, Congress, and the executive branch, highlighting the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers at stake in this case. 

Logistical chaos looming

Erman warned that eliminating nationwide injunctions in this case could create logistical chaos, explaining that limiting rulings to specific districts would trigger duplicate filings across every jurisdiction, while restricting relief only to individual plaintiffs would prompt a wave of copycat lawsuits demanding equal treatment.

Civil rights organizations would face significantly greater challenges in these circumstances because they would need to fight legal battles in every jurisdiction, potentially creating a patchwork of conflicting citizenship rules across the United States, Schlanger explained.

Wu described the fear among his work visa clients regarding the Trump administration's executive order's potential impact on their families, explaining that H-1B visa holders often remain in the US for decades before obtaining green cards, while now facing uncertainty about their children's status if born during this prolonged waiting period.

Ramirez moves to protect birthright citizenship

Ramirez expressed little optimism about securing Republican support in Congress to defend birthright citizenship, acknowledging that while some colleagues privately agreed with the principle that anyone born in the US automatically qualifies for citizenship, none have been willing to publicly affirm this position through official statements or legislative action.

The bill Ramirez plans to put forward both reinforces the constitutional guarantee of automatic citizenship for those born in the US and leverages congressional spending authority to prevent the administration from implementing its proposed restrictions.

By cutting off all federal funding for the order's execution, the bill would render the administration powerless to operationalize any Supreme Court approval, preventing the creation of citizenship screening mechanisms, status reclassifications, or removal proceedings even if the policy cleared judicial hurdles.

Passage of Ramirez's bill through the Democratic House and Republican Senate would strip Trump's birthright citizenship order of all operational force while leaving it technically intact but unenforceable.

“We’re going to have a strong showing. Over 100 members of Congress are original co-sponsors to this bill,” Ramirez emphasized, adding, “People are really riled up to fight back and understand that attempting to erode birthright citizenship is literally attempting to erode our democracy itself."