Supreme Court Wrong: What to Do?
The Long Road to Justice: How Legal Battles Shape Activism and Citizenship
The fight for civil rights is rarely a single, decisive battle. As history shows, from the streets to the courtroom, activism takes many forms, with legal challenges often serving as crucial turning points. The legacy of the Bowers v. Hardwick protest, for instance, wasn’t confined to the sidewalks; it ignited parallel campaigns in the ballot box, state courts, and legislatures. While the Supreme Court finally overturned Bowers in 2003 with lawrence v. Texas, the Georgia Supreme Court had already struck down the state law five years prior, demonstrating the power of sustained legal pressure. This enduring lesson underscores the necessity for continuous litigation to secure fundamental rights.
The question of birthright citizenship, recently thrust into the national spotlight by President Trump’s executive order, is poised to become the next major legal battleground. The order sought to deny citizenship to children born to mothers with no legal status or only temporary lawful status, and fathers who are neither citizens nor green-card holders. While lower courts initially blocked this “wildly illegal” order through global injunctions, the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA (Children’s Appellant Services agency), authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, considerably curtailed this powerful legal tool. The CASA ruling stipulated that judges could only grant “complete relief” – the legal term for remedying harm – to the specific parties involved in a case, effectively limiting the scope of such injunctions. This raised concerns that only children with immediate legal portrayal would be able to secure their citizenship.
However, these fears have begun to abate.Justice sonia Sotomayor,in her dissent,highlighted a crucial avenue left open in the “rubble” of CASA: the class-action lawsuit. she urged parents of affected babies to “file promptly.” Class actions, where a small group of plaintiffs represent a larger group with similar claims, boast a long and robust legal history, far more so than the recent proliferation of universal injunctions. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education, argued by Justice Thurgood Marshall (who himself dissented in Bowers), were class-action suits, proving their efficacy in achieving broad societal change.
Sotomayor’s advice has already been heeded. on July 10th, a federal judge in New Hampshire provisionally certified a class of all babies targeted by Trump’s order, born on or after February 20th, the date the order was intended to take effect. The judge also enjoined its enforcement against any member of this class. the named plaintiffs,known in court documents as Matthew (born in Florida in March) and Sarah (born in utah in April),represent a potentially vast number of children. Furthermore, the ACLU and other organizations have initiated a class-action suit on behalf of all detainees at the notorious “Alligator Alcatraz” migrant detention facility in Florida, citing their lack of access to legal counsel.
Adding another layer to the legal defense, the CASA case itself included twenty-two states as plaintiffs. Justice Barrett, in her opinion, came remarkably close to acknowledging that complete relief for these states would necessitate something akin to a universal injunction. The choice could lead to a chaotic scenario where an individual’s citizenship status could change simply by crossing state lines. However, Barrett deferred this complex decision to the lower courts. Indeed, last Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case brought by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, blocked the executive order nationwide, at least temporarily. The court found that the states would otherwise be placed in an “impossible” position.
The Supreme court’s conservative majority appears increasingly uncomfortable with the legal quandaries presented by the Trump administration’s policies. Their unease is frequently enough expressed through avoidance - focusing on technicalities, remanding cases to lower courts, or delaying decisions. Yet, this procrastination cannot continue indefinitely without risking a constitutional crisis. The danger lies in the possibility that some justices might potentially be willing to embrace such a crisis, rather than confront the fundamental questions of citizenship and justice head-on. The ongoing legal battles, however, demonstrate a persistent commitment to ensuring that the pursuit of justice remains a continuous, multi-faceted endeavor.