唐纳德·特朗普总统赞扬了美国最高法院在6月为一个“不朽的胜利”当它撤销了全国性的禁令反对他试图终止出生公民权的行政命令。
三个月后，在两个联邦法院一致否决该命令后不同的理由特朗普要求法官对他对一个多世纪以来既定法律先例的重新解释做出最终判决。
在美国广播公司周日新闻(ABC News Sunday)审查的文件中，副检察长约翰·绍尔(John Sauer)敦促大法官加快考虑特朗普的上诉，并在明年夏天之前做出决定。
绍尔在一份申请调卷令的请愿书中写道:“政府有一个令人信服的利益，即确保美国公民身份——允许我们选择政治领导人的特权——只授予那些依法有权获得公民身份的人。”
他写道，“下级法院的裁决使一项对总统及其政府至关重要的政策无效，破坏了我们的边境安全。”"这些决定在没有合法理由的情况下，将美国公民的特权授予了成千上万不合格的人。"
法院和政府长期以来一直将第14修正案的公民身份条款解释为适用于任何在美国出生的人，无论孩子父母的移民身份如何。
这修正案内战后批准，规定所有“出生或归化的人美国，并受其管辖，是美国和他们居住的州的公民。"
特朗普上任第一天就签署了一项行政命令，单方面宣布只有父母拥有永久合法身份的新生儿才“受美国管辖”，因此有资格成为美国公民。
根据宾夕法尼亚州立社会科学研究所(Penn State Social Science Research Institute)的数据，每年约有255，000名儿童出生在美国本土，父母一方或多方没有美国公民身份或永久合法身份。
在最高法院决定是否受理此案并最终作出判决之前，政府不会寻求开始执行行政命令。最高法院的决定可能需要几个月的时间。
美国公民自由联盟移民权利项目副主任科迪·沃夫西(Cody Wofsy)在一份声明中说，“这项行政命令是非法的，完全停止，政府的任何机动都不会改变这一点。”“我们将继续确保没有一个婴儿的公民权会被这一残酷而愚蠢的命令剥夺。”
7月新罕布什尔州的一名联邦法官统治特朗普的命令显然违反了宪法，并在涵盖所有受影响儿童的集体诉讼中阻止了宪法的执行。
同样在7月，联邦上诉法院的另一项裁决阻止了该命令在全国范围内的执行，称一群州原告只有被普遍搁置，才能免受公民身份限制的保护。
政府告诉最高法院，他们寻求对这两起案件进行上诉。
每个案件的原告美国公民自由联盟和华盛顿州总检察长向美国广播公司新闻提供了政府文件的副本。
1898年，最高法院曾处理过非美国公民在美国领土上所生子女的公民身份问题里程碑式的案件美国诉王金方舟根据法律他们是美国人。
“[第14号]修正案用明确的语言和明显的意图，包括所有其他人在美国领土内出生的孩子，无论种族或肤色，居住在美国境内，”法官霍勒斯·格雷(Horace Gray)以6-2的多数写道。任何他国的公民或臣民，在美国居住时，都应受合众国的效忠和保护，并因此受其管辖。
特朗普政府试图辩称，在这一先例中，仍有将临时游客和非法外国人所生子女排除在公民身份之外的回旋余地。
“对于已经在美国的所有人来说，出生公民权是一项宝贵的权利，对于这个国家来说，未来的依赖利益-如果最高法院做出有利于特朗普的裁决，这将是一场地震，”霍夫斯特拉法学教授、宪法学者和美国广播公司新闻法律撰稿人詹姆斯·萨姆特说。
“我不认为会发生这种情况，”Sample说。“然而，在政治层面上，特朗普可能会将此视为有利的条件，因为即使他在法律上失败，即使他在最高法院失败，他的许多政治盟友也会将此视为他们喜欢的那种政治斗争，他会喜欢输掉比赛。”
Trump seeks expedited Supreme Court review of birthright citizenship executive order
President Donald Trump praised theU.S. Supreme Courtin June for a "monumental victory" when itrolled back nationwide injunctionsagainst his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.
Three months later, after two federal courts universally blocked the order again ondifferent grounds, Trump is asking the justices for a definitive judgment on his reinterpretation of more than a century of settled legal precedent.
In filings, reviewed by ABC News Sunday but not yet on the Supreme Court's public docket, Solicitor General John Sauer urges the justices to give expedited consideration to Trump's appeal and a decision by next summer.
"The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that American citizenship—the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders—is granted only to those who are lawfully entitled to it," Sauer wrote in a petition for writ of certiorari.
"The lower court's decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the President and his Administration in a manner that undermines our border security," he wrote. "Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people."
Courts and the government have long interpreted the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause to apply to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the immigration status of a child's parents.
TheAmendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that all "persons born or naturalized in theUnited States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order unilaterally declaring that only newborns whose parents have permanent legal status are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be citizens.
An estimated 255,000 children are born on U.S. soil each year to one or more parents without American citizenship or permanent legal status, according to the Penn State Social Science Research Institute.
The administration is not seeking to begin enforcing the executive order until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case and ultimately render judgment -- a decision likely months away.
"This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, in a statement. "We will continue to ensure that no one baby's citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order."
A federal judge in New Hampshire in Julyruledthat Trump's order plainly appears to violate the Constitution and blocked enforcement of it in a class-action suit that covers all children who would be affected.
A separate ruling by a federal appeals court, also in July, blocked enforcement of the order nationwide, saying that a group of state plaintiffs could only be protected from the citizenship restrictions if they were put universally on hold.
The administration told the Supreme Court it seeks to appeal both cases.
The plaintiffs in each case -- the ACLU and Washington State attorney general -- provided ABC News with copies of the government's filings.
In 1898, the Supreme Court previously addressed the question of citizenship for children born to non-citizens on U.S. soil, ruling in thelandmark case U.S. v Wong Kim Arkthat they are Americans under the law.
"The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States," wrote Justice Horace Gray for the 6-2 majority. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
The Trump administration is attempting to argue that there is wiggle room in that precedent to still exclude from citizenship children born to temporary visitors and illegal aliens.
"The reliance interest for all of the people who are already here in the United States to whom birthright citizenship is a cherished right, and for the nation prospectively – this would be an earthquake if the Supreme Court were to rule in Trump's favor," said Hofstra Law professor, constitutional scholar, and ABC News legal contributor James Sample.
"I don't see that happening," Sample said. "On a political level, however, Trump likely sees this as favorable ground in the sense that even if he loses on the law, even if he loses in the Supreme Court, many of his political allies would see this as the kind of red meat political fight that they relish, and he would love to run against a loss."
