Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration: Impoundment and Birthright Citizenship
As of March 21, legal challenges against the Trump administration have surged, with approximately 132 lawsuits identified by the legal news platform Just Security. Among these, two issues stand out as particularly significant in their potential constitutional implications: the doctrine of impoundment and the status of birthright citizenship.
Understanding Impoundment
One key legal concern is whether a president can unilaterally cancel federal expenditures mandated by Congress, an action known as impoundment. The future Chief Justice William Rehnquist articulated in a 1969 memo that there is considerable difficulty in justifying a president’s refusal to adhere to congressional spending directives, stating, “it is in our view extremely difficult to formulate a constitutional theory to justify a refusal by the President to comply with a congressional directive to spend.”
Birthright Citizenship: Constitutional Clarity
Another pressing issue involves birthright citizenship, which is clearly defined in the Constitution: anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its laws is considered a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. A Reagan-appointed judge expressed it succinctly: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is.”
The Supreme Court’s Political Landscape
The current Supreme Court, known for its conservative leanings and partisanship, has been accused of settling old political scores, even ruling that the president may utilize his powers to commit illegal acts. This context raises concerns that justices may side with a Republican administration, particularly in cases involving these significant constitutional questions.
Legal Viability of Impoundment and Citizenship Cases
The challenges regarding both impoundment and birthright citizenship serve as crucial barometers for evaluating the Court’s willingness to act against Trump’s administrative decisions. Observers note that competent lawyers and reasonable judges would find Trump’s positions in both scenarios legally untenable. Should the Supreme Court rule in Trump’s favor, it would set a precedent for minimal judicial resistance against his administration’s future actions.
Recent Court Activity on Impoundment
Fortunately, there are early indicators that the Court may not support Trump’s requests. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a case compelling the administration to disburse around $2 billion in foreign aid, resulting in a close 5-4 decision. This minor setback suggests that most justices may not be inclined to swiftly protect the interests of a Republican leader.
Birthright Citizenship Cases and Their Trajectory
For the birthright citizenship issue, three cases recently came before the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, yet the justices decided to postpone deliberations until at least April 4. This delay hints that the Court does not regard Trump’s arguments seriously, contrasting with the expedited handling of other cases. The outcomes of these discussions will be crucial in determining the fate of birthright citizenship protections moving forward.
Assessing the Legal Framework
Impoundment: A Constitutional Review
Trump’s claims of broad authority to cancel federal spending, including dismantling agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have drawn skepticism from judges. The Constitution mandates that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” suggesting the executive branch cannot simply disregard appropriations made by Congress.
Challenges to Birthright Citizenship
The arguments against birthright citizenship are notably weak. The Fourteenth Amendment asserts that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therein, are citizens.” Given that undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws, the application of this amendment remains clear. The Trump administration’s claim that “jurisdiction” equates to “allegiance” fails to stand up legally, as the Constitution does not distinguish based on parents’ immigration status.
Conclusion: Future Implications
The legal proceedings surrounding Trump’s impoundment and birthright citizenship actions indicate that the Supreme Court may not readily support his administration’s more overt constitutional violations, despite its overall conservative trend. Observers maintain a cautious hope that the decisions in these key cases could demonstrate a capacity for judicial independence, providing a necessary check on presidential power.
