WASHINGTON- In a move that has reignited the debate over a cornerstone of U.S. constitutional law, President Donald Trump has announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing regarding the ruling that, last week, upheld the validity of birthright citizenship. Through his social media platform, Truth Social, the President condemned the justices’ decision as a “judicial error” and an “absolutely insane” choice, warning that this interpretation would profoundly damage the country if not revisited.
The Supreme Court Ruling
At the heart of the dispute was an executive order signed by President Trump that sought to limit the automatic acquisition of citizenship for children of immigrants born on U.S. soil. The order mandated that, to obtain a U.S. passport, at least one parent must be a citizen or a permanent resident. In a definitive ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the executive order, reaffirming the centrality of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts penned a historic 26-page opinion, asserting that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States. “Citizenship, then as now, was the right to have rights,” wrote Roberts, emphasizing that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to extend this promise to “every person born free in this country.” The majority—comprising Chief Justice Roberts, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the progressive bloc (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson)—has thereby solidified a century-old precedent.
Cracks in the Conservative Front
Although the ruling was upheld, there was significant internal divergence among the conservative justices. While disagreeing with the majority’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted to block the administration’s policy based on a pre-existing federal law that prohibited its implementation. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch expressed firm dissent. Justice Alito, in particular, authored a 39-page dissenting opinion, accusing the Court of having committed a “grave error” by upholding birthright citizenship.
The Technical Factor: Why a Rehearing is an Uphill Battle
Despite President Trump’s announcement, legal practice suggests that the chances of success are extremely slim. The U.S. legal system allows the losing party to file a petition for rehearing, but this is an action the Supreme Court grants only in the rarest of circumstances. As noted by Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, the Court has not granted a rehearing for a merits case argued in court since 1965. Often, these petitions for rehearing are not intended to overturn the outcome, but rather to manage the technical timelines for remanding cases to lower courts. Under federal law, the administration has 25 days from the date of the ruling to formally submit the petition. Experts agree that this initiative will clash with the solid precedent established by the Court’s decision, which has shielded the interpretation of the 14th Amendment against attempts at modification through executive action.
