The Daily
Birthright Citizenship Reaches The Supreme Court
May 16, 2025
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times and Yale Law graduate, dives into the contentious Supreme Court case concerning birthright citizenship. He breaks down the Trump administration's unconventional legal tactics and the implications for presidential power. The discussion reveals tensions between the executive and judiciary, particularly over universal injunctions. Liptak also highlights the potential ramifications for state authority and citizenship verification, raising critical questions about the future of American law.
30:29
Episode guests
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- The Trump administration's unconventional legal strategy centers on undermining nationwide injunctions rather than directly defending its birthright citizenship executive order.
- Critics argue that limiting judicial power risks undermining the system of checks and balances, potentially disrupting national policies.
Deep dives
Supreme Court's Role in Birthright Citizenship
The Trump administration’s effort to abolish birthright citizenship faced scrutiny in the Supreme Court regarding its legal strategy. Instead of defending the constitutionality of its executive order banning birthright citizenship, the administration chose to concede to 22 states that argue against it while challenging the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions. This approach suggests a focus on limiting the scope of judicial power rather than engaging directly with the merits of the citizenship issue. The administration highlighted concerns that individual judges could disrupt national policy, but critics argue this undermines judicial checks and balances.
