{"id":19230,"date":"2026-07-01T13:32:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T13:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/siliconvalleymovingpost.com\/?p=19230"},"modified":"2026-07-01T13:32:00","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T13:32:00","slug":"how-the-supreme-court-became-a-pivotal-force-in-trumps-immigration-agenda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/siliconvalleymovingpost.com\/?p=19230","title":{"rendered":"How the Supreme Court became a pivotal force in Trump\u2019s immigration agenda"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

By REBECCA SANTANA<\/strong><\/p>\n

WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Donald Trump\u2019s administration looked to the Supreme Court to greenlight its sweeping hard-line immigration agenda and, by and large, it got the backing it was looking for with one key exception \u2014 birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n

Read more US, Canada, Mexico begin bumpy negotiations to renew North American trade pact<\/a><\/p>\n

After lower courts repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration, the nation\u2019s top court allowed it to terminate temporary protections for people fleeing war or strife. It gave immigration officers greater leeway in dealing with green card holders returning from abroad, and it allowed the government to limit the number of people who can apply for asylum.<\/p>\n

In being asked to serve as an enabler of the Republican president\u2019s contentious immigration crackdown, the Supreme Court showed deference to constitutional guardrails in the key case of birthright citizenship that would have redefined who can be an American. In ruling against the administration, the court upheld the idea that people who are born in the United States, regardless of their parents\u2019 immigration status, are Americans.<\/p>\n

Each decision could have far-reaching consequences for foreigners seeking to live in the country and could help shape public perceptions over whether America remains a beacon for migrants.<\/p>\n

Birthright citizenship is upheld, prompting calls for more restrictions<\/h4>\n

The Trump administration had sought to prevent children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily from being entitled to American citizenship at birth.<\/p>\n

A divided Supreme Court upheld the concept of birthright citizenship, with a bare majority of five justices saying that with very limited exceptions the long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.<\/p>\n

It was a blow to Trump\u2019s immigration agenda, a centerpiece of his second administration. The president signed the order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship on his first day in office, although it never went into effect due to legal challenges.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n

The court\u2019s decision was praised by advocates but led to calls by some Republicans to try to restrict birthright citizenship by other means.<\/p>\n

Mark Krikorian, who heads the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration, said the decision makes the president\u2019s push for large-scale deportations \u201call the more urgent,\u201d with the goal of removing people in the country illegally before they have children.<\/p>\n

Krikorian said the decision means policies governing programs that allow foreigners to come to the U.S. to work or study at university need to be \u201ctightened up\u201d to prevent people from coming to the U.S. and having children who then become citizens. He also suggested the State Department could add a pregnancy question to visa applications of foreigners seeking to get a tourist or other visa to come to the U.S.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s going to have real policy impact,\u201d Krikorian said.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n