Pres. Trump says ruling is “too bad for America,” Houston advocate disagrees

“It does bring us a sense of hope.” A Houston nonprofit CEO is speaking out after a major Supreme Court ruling.

HOUSTON — A Supreme Court ruling has determined that birthright citizenship remains in place, saying President Trump did not have the authority to end it through an executive order. The decision is drawing mixed reactions in Washington and here in Texas.

In a statement, President Trump said the decision is “too bad for America,” but also said he’d accept the ruling. Immigrant advocates say even the attempt was an overstep. But calls the highest court’s ruling part of the process the founding fathers intended.

This story continues below.

More in Local

 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, which would have gone against the 14th Amendment granting citizenship and equal protection under the law.

“Not only was the executive order wrongfully given, but the president cannot undermine the Constitution of the United States,” said Cesar Espinoza, CEO of FIEL, an immigrant advocacy organization.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, said the president had scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view. Rice Professor of legal students David Leebron says the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to provide citizenship to recently freed slaves, the right to due process and equal protection under the law.

“It was also made clear. This was a general test of citizenship in the United States that would apply to all.”

President Trump signed the executive order immediately after taking office. Leaving many immigrant communities in limbo, questioning how it would be enforced, and how many would end up stateless.

“It does bring us a sense of hope that at the end of the day, the founding fathers when they set up the three branches of government. There are checks and balances in the constitution,” Espinoza said.

Opponents like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson claim people are visiting America in large numbers just to give birth. A claim others argue isn’t true.

“It’s one of those things that was intended to serve a noble, important purpose and has been through it and overused and abused, and I’m very disappointed in that outcome,” Johnson said.

Leebron says, based on the arguments presented, he’s not shocked by the court’s decision. 

“Circumstances may have changed, but the Constitution has not, and this is a case in which history the purposes of the amendment, the original understanding of them in the text of the amendment, really all came together,” said Leebron.

Although the speaker of the house said the decision was disappointing. He did say any efforts to amend the constitution would be hard-fought, and if it were presented, would take years.