US Supreme Court: Trump v Barbara Birthright Citizenship Decision

• The Supreme Court held that executive order 14160, which aimed to end birthright citizenship, was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
• A 4-1-4 split in the court would have led to unclear precedential value and potentially sparked congressional action on an issue of profound national importance.
• The Marks rule determines the outcome when there is no majority opinion, but its application can be uncertain in cases like Trump v. Barbara.

This outcome was not surprising given the strong precedent set by the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Barbara was a closely watched case that tested the limits of executive power and the Constitution's citizenship clause. The court ultimately held that executive order 14160, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for certain groups, was unconstitutional. This outcome was not surprising given the strong precedent set by the 14th Amendment. However, the decision could have had far-reaching consequences if only one more justice had dissented, leading to a 4-1-4 split and unclear precedential value.

In cases where there is no majority opinion, the court relies on the Marks rule to determine the outcome. This rule, established in the 1977 case of Marks v. United States, states that when five or more justices join an opinion, it becomes a precedent. However, if there is no clear majority, the decision's precedential value is uncertain. The Trump v. Barbara decision was a prime example of this uncertainty, as a 4-1-4 split would have left the court without a clear direction on the issue.

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Barbara may have been a narrow escape for birthright citizenship, but it also highlights the potential for congressional action to change the law. If one more justice had dissented, the court would have been unable to provide clear guidance on the issue, potentially leading to changes in the law and creating compliance exposures for companies with international operations. This outcome underscores the importance of understanding the implications of the Marks rule and its impact on the Supreme Court's decision-making process.

Lawyers should watch for potential congressional action on birthright citizenship, which could lead to changes in the law and create compliance exposures for companies with international operations.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog