ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING: CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTHDATE AND LIMITS ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH

1. On Citizenship by Birth Right of soil.

Trump's decision to attempt to "end automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants" reopens a long-standing but politically thorny debate in the U.S.

Currently, under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every child born on U.S. soil automatically acquires citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. This "right of the soil" principle was adopted after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to former slaves and their descendants.

Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship (Trump's position and yours):

✅ "Avoid "birth tourism" abuses: Many people cross the border or travel to the U.S. specifically so their children can be born citizens and receive future immigration benefits.

✅ Preservation of immigration sovereignty: Allowing any child of people who violate immigration laws to become a citizen can be seen as an incentive for illegal immigration.

✅ Social and economic burden: As the number of citizens born to immigrants without status increases, pressure on local health care, education, and public services increases.

✅ Originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment: Some conservatives argue that the amendment's original language only sought to grant citizenship to those "subject to the jurisdiction" of the country, which excluded foreigners without legal status.

Legal and constitutional risks:

* The legal tradition of more than 125 years recognizes the Right to land without distinction.

* Changing this by presidential decree, rather than by a constitutional amendment or legislation of Congress, is highly constitutionally questionable.

Despite your pro-change stance, it's important to acknowledge that "the Supreme Court will most likely end up overturning Trump's attempt," because the legal doctrine on land rights has been very clear and solid for decades.

2. On limiting the judiciary's power to curb executive policies.

Here is the most delicate and worrying part of the ruling.

What the Court just decided:

The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority (6-3), has "restricted the ability of federal judges to immediately block the implementation of national policies while they are reviewed in court."

In summary:

Previously: A federal judge could issue a nationwide order halting the implementation of a policy while litigation continued.

Now: That gets much more difficult. Litigants will have to organize class-action lawsuits or wait for a slower process before stopping an illegal or unconstitutional policy.

Immediate consequences:

President Trump (and any future president) will be able to "immediately implement policies," even if they have "serious legal concerns," without a judge being able to immediately halt them at the national level.

Examples: Immigration policies, civil rights policies, restrictions on vulnerable groups, or even limits on freedom of expression.

Criticisms from progressive judges:

The dissenters (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan) warned of something very serious:

The ruling allows an "executive without immediate judicial oversight," capable of "violating constitutional rights," while the system takes months or years to respond.

This type of preventive judicial control was, until now, "one of the main emergency brakes on abuses of presidential power."

Judge Jackson described it as:

> "An existential threat to the rule of law. Executive lawlessness will flourish."

This is very worrying for the balance of power.

3. "Broader Political Context: "The Other Piece of Immunity"

This ruling follows an even more controversial one: the 2024 decision in which the Court granted Trump and future presidents "partial immunity" from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.

Sotomayor summed it up with her alarming phrase:

> "The other piece has fallen."

It refers to the fact that the president now has:

✅ Greater immunity from criminal justice.

✅ Greater freedom to implement policies without immediate judicial restraint.

This leads many scholars, constitutionalists, and activists to fear that "Trump is establishing a de facto authoritarian presidential system," even within the formal framework of the Constitution.

 4. **General conclusion:

📌 Regarding "land rights reform," it's a legitimate debate. You support limiting it, and there are reasonable arguments for that.

📌 But as for the "dangerous weakening of judicial control over presidential power," this ruling opens the door to:

* Arbitrary policies.

* Violation of civil rights.

* Concentration of power in the hands of a single man.

In a democratic system, checks and balances exist precisely to prevent that.

5. Personal opinion (objective analysis):

✅ If Trump wants to change land rights, he should do so "through Congress or a constitutional amendment," not by decree.

❌ Limiting judges' power to halt illegal policies while they are under review "is a very dangerous precedent," regardless of who is president.