Jeffrey Toobin Says Supreme Court Appears Stumped by Key Issue in Citizenship Case: ‘They Seem Pretty Much at Sea’
Former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin said the U.S. Supreme Court seems vexed by a central issue in a case it heard on Thursday regarding birthright citizenship.
The case involves an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that interprets the 14th Amendment as denying U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or parents who are in the country temporarily. That interpretation is at odds with more than a century’s worth of precedent regarding the 14th Amendment, which states, “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.”
However, the issue immediately before the court is not the merits of Trump’s executive order. Rather, the Trump administration is challenging three nationwide injunctions issued in separate cases by federal district court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. Before the high court on Thursday, Solicitor General John Sauer defended the executive order and argued that nationwide injunctions are impractical for various reasons, not the least of which is that they foster an “ongoing risk of conflicting judgments.”
Hours later, Toobin appeared on CNN’s AC360, where he said the justices seem a bit lost on the injunction question.
“I think ultimately birthright citizenship is going to be upheld,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be much sentiment on the court to adopt the Trump position on birthright citizenship. However, the issue of nationwide injunctions, which is a big issue – it was big under President Biden, it’s big now – the court seems quite torn on that issue because… it’s obviously a problem when liberal lawyers can run to San Francisco and get one nationwide injunction and conservative lawyers can run to Amarillo, Texas and get a different one.”
Host Anderson Cooper noted that such judge-shopping – where plaintiffs seek relief in jurisdictions that are likely to be sympathetic – has happened with some frequency.
“Absolutely, and that is not how the legal system is supposed to work,” Toobin replied, adding that it is far from clear how the court will rule on the injunction question:
However, when you have something like birthright citizenship, it is a good idea to have a national rule. So, a nationwide injunction is a good idea. So, how do you differentiate between cases? I mean, you don’t want to have a situation where, you know, you have birthright citizenship in New York, but not in Texas. It should be one rule for the country.
And so, the issue is how do you differentiate between issues where it’s appropriate to have a nationwide injunction and some where it’s not? And I don’t think the court has really sorted that out at all. They seem pretty much at sea on that question.
Watch above via CNN.
