The Supreme Court hears Arguments to end Trump’s Native Citizenship

US President Donald Trump ended his nationality citizenship in a situation that can help more than the agenda on the US Supreme Court, Immigration and other issues on Thursday.

The lawsuit asks that the lower court judges may block the presidential orders for the entire country as they do in this situation. The courts did not reach a consensus as they considered both sides.

The US lawyer has exceeded the powers of the total general courts, and this power should be reduced, he said.

Meanwhile, the new Jersey Solicitor – those who argued on behalf of a group of states, Trump will create a siding citizenship system with Trump, he said.

This will create “chaos on the ground”, lawyer Jeremy Feigenbaum defended.

It is not clear when the court decision. If it agrees with Trump, then it can be widely used to make a wide range of orders to force the congress without waiting for the approval.

The justice in the ideological spectrum fought two issues at a two-hour court hearing on Thursday.

There was a request for the power of the lower courts to block a domestic presidential decision. Justices believe that the right of birth should be the essence of citizenship – these critics violate the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and the 14th amendment of the Supreme Court.

General Dourner, John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump Management, demanded that the current system would make the judges in a hurry, high level and low-precious decisions. “

Sauer offered a class-action claims that allow a large number of bidders to own each other – as a potential alternative. However, they noted that the opponents of the Sauer did not give the time of this process and did not relieve in emergencies.

For more than an hour, Liberal Justice, Liberal Justice, Elena Kagan, said that the leadership lost the right to the right to the right of the subsection. “Why will you take this work to us?” asked.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most prominent conservatives of the court, criticized the power of the lower court to broadcast national specialty.

“Sometimes they are wrong,” said some lower judicial judges were “sensitive to a professional disease with the disease that I am right, and I can do what I want.”

Feigenbaum, who argued on behalf of the state of the executive authorities, who argued on behalf of the law, said that Siding in the issue will be impossible and unconstitutional.

Eliminating the choice for national specialties, he claimed that a person could have the status of a state, but lost it to another.

Feigenbaum said that this standard will have a harmful effect on the distribution of state benefits of this standard to protect Medicaid, immigration and accurate statistics.

“Since the 14th amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to change because of the state where someone lives,” Feigenbaum.

Courts asked lawyers Lobbasca, a large protest group, Trump’s immigration policy gathered in the opposition.

The former spokesman of the House of Representatives Congress joined Nancy Pelosi, joined the protesters abroad and read from the US Constitution.

“This is about the right to birth, it belongs to this process,” he said.

It is unusual for the Supreme Court to hear in May, and there is no sign of what it can handle. Trump, in the first term of the Conservative-Majority Court, has set three nine fair fees.

Many law specialists say the president has no power to end the birth of birth, because the 14th amendment of the US Constitution is guaranteed. Thus, thus the Trump wins the current case, it may still be forced to fight other legal problems.

In particular, the 14th amendment is “Citizens who are born in the United States, all of which are born or naturalized there and his jurisdiction.”

At the executive order, the automation of the phrase “their jurisdiction” in the Trump, claimed that citizenship did not appeal to temporary people or country.

Federal Justice in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, but the rulings that prevent the nationwide or universal – the application of the order.

The reserves, in turn, claimed that the Kozamaz leadership exceeded the powers of the lower courts.

“The universal exidemic rates have reached the epidemic ratio since the beginning of the current office,” the government said in March, he said. “These court members recognized the need to resolve the legality of universal administrators.”

At the beginning of this week, the official of a judiciary, told reporters that the tribe was able to carry out the policy agenda of the trumpet and the leadership would see it as a “direct attack.”

The work, which is heard in the Supreme Court, both the immigration lawyers and the United States are caused by three separate judicial lawsuits.

The Trump leadership asked the court to be tried to judge that the government would only be able to apply to those immigrants called to these exercises – the government would at least partially partially partially exercise Trump’s order for the continuation of legal battles.

According to the Department of Justice, about 40 different courts have opened administratively since the start of the second Trump management.

In a separate situation, despite the two subtitles, the Supreme Court eventually intervened, although the Supreme Court intervened and allowed politics to apply.

One end – even partially one – the right citizenship in the United States claims that tens of thousands of children in the United States, claiming that there are tens of thousands of children, and only the people of people, who were born, and only in a descendant of people who were born.

The Immigration Lawyer and Professor Alex Cuic at the University of Ohio, Ohio, said that some of the potential of the BBC’s birth rights can force some of these children to be undocumented or even citizens. ”

“There is no guarantee of countries where their parents return them.” “It would be unknown where the government could deport them.”