Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In its defense of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting access to birthright citizenship, the Justice Department claims that the government’s policy would bring the United States in line with the modern global trend. It is true that most countries do not grant citizenship at birth to people born within their borders with as few restrictions as the United States. But that isn’t new: The United States has been a global outlier since the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. 

Understanding which countries grant citizenship primarily based on the location of birth, and which don’t, helps make sense of the 127-year-old approach that the Justice Department is asking the court to reconsider. This also reveals the troubling history of why certain countries have chosen not to recognize birthright citizenship in the first place. 

Justice, Democracy, and Law is a recurring series by Edward B. Foley that focuses on election law and the relationship of law and democracy.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Electoral competition in the United States will become increasingly intense next year as the congressional midterms approach and the nation moves towards the 2028 presidential election. The reason for this heightened intensity should be obvious: in addition to the generally accelerating partisan polarization that afflicts U.S. politics, there is the acute strain caused by President Donald Trump’s record of accusing elections of being rigged or stolen when he doesn’t like the outcome or anticipates a potential defeat.

Updated on Nov. 18 at 7:23 p.m.

Over the past two weeks, the Supreme Court resolved two of the longest-standing matters on its interim docket with orders clearing the way for the Trump administration to implement new rules for sex markers on passports and denying a request to allow a young girl set to be sent to family members in Venezuela to remain in Texas with her mother. And on Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a stay in a case on whether the Republic of the Philippines or a class of individuals who suffered (or whose families suffered) at the hands of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos should have control of $40 million from his estate that’s in a New York bank account, writing that a stay is not needed in order to maintain the status quo while the dispute continues.  

Over the objections of three justices, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the sheriff of New Orleans in a dispute over the city’s obligation to build a new facility for inmates with mental health issues. The dispute began more than a dozen years ago, when inmates at the prison in Orleans Parish went to federal court. They argued that the facilities there violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment because they did not provide adequate housing for inmates with mental health conditions.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a ruling by a federal appeals court that, the Trump administration contends, “has already caused—and, if left in place, will continue to cause—‘untold interference with the Executive Branch’s ability to manage the southern border.’” The immigrant rights group and asylum seekers who filed the lawsuit had urged the justices to leave the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in place, telling them that the government’s argument “would empower border officials to render” federal law governing the processing of asylum seekers “wholly inoperable at ports of entry.”