诺曼·王(Norman Wong)正在为家族遗产而战。
一个多世纪以前，他的曾祖父黄金方舟(出生于旧金山的美国公民)被拒绝进入美国美国根据排华法案。他提起诉讼，最高法院对他的案件的判决成为里程碑式的裁决，体现了与生俱来的公民权。
75岁的退休木匠王(Wong)表示，他现在担心自己正目睹家族遗产被拆除，因为唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统试图利用一项行政命令取消一些非公民子女的出生公民权。最高法院将会开始讨论这个问题周四，大法官们将听取关于是否限制一系列法院裁决的辩论，这些裁决阻止了特朗普取消出生公民权的行政命令。
“一方面，我比以往任何时候都为自己是黄基方舟的后代而感到自豪，”黄告诉ABC新闻。“但我也觉得这是一场我们所有人都需要参与的斗争，因为这是为了我们国家的灵魂。”
最高法院对此案的裁决可能会产生深远的影响，无论大法官们是决定只处理全国性禁令的合法性问题，还是介入与生俱来的公民权本身的潜在法律争论。
“重写宪法”
在他的上任第一天，特朗普签署了题为“保护美国公民身份的意义和价值”的行政命令，将出生公民权限于美国公民和合法居民的子女。它立即受到质疑，马萨诸塞州、新罕布什尔州、马里兰州和华盛顿州的法官阻止它生效。
“我已经做了40多年的法官。美国地方法官约翰·库格诺尔说:“我不记得还有哪一个案件像这里这样清楚地提出了这个问题。”阻止行政命令特朗普当选总统仅三天。"这是一项公然违反宪法的命令。"
特朗普认为，只有拥有永久合法身份的新生儿才“受美国管辖”，有资格获得出生公民权。第十四修正案规定，所有“在美国出生或归化美国并受其管辖的人，都是美国和他们所居住的州的公民。”
随着特朗普发出一份前所未有的河流在他上任的头几个月里，他的政府在全国各地的联邦法院面临着超过220项法律挑战的冲击。特朗普政府被迫在法庭上为单边行动辩护，遭遇了一次又一次的损失，在他上任的头一百天里阻碍了他的部分议程的实施。
弗吉尼亚大学法学院教授阿曼达·弗罗斯特解释说:“我们已经看到特朗普的许多提议、倡议和命令受到全国禁令的限制，但这是因为他正在发布数量空前的行政命令，试图重写宪法和法律。”
特朗普和他的盟友指责他们所谓的“司法政变”，并认为联邦法官发布全国性命令已经过头了。
“流行病比例”
今年3月，特朗普政府利用其对阻止特朗普与生俱来的公民身份行政命令的多项法院命令的上诉，作为挑战全国禁令的手段。询问最高法院暂缓执行下级法院的命令，减少全国性命令的发布。
“自本届政府开始以来，普遍禁令已经达到了流行的程度，”前代理副检察长萨拉·哈里斯(Sarah Harris)认为。“在地方法院对普遍禁令的日益依赖变得更加根深蒂固之前，本法院应该宣布适可而止。"
特朗普政府没有要求最高法院审查特朗普行政命令的合法性，而是要求法官们考虑阻止行政命令实施的禁令的范围。他们认为，该命令不应适用于美国的任何人，而应局限于特定的联邦地区或仅适用于诉讼中的具名原告。
虽然特朗普政府受到了前所未有的禁令——根据政府官员的说法，一个月内的禁令数量超过了拜登政府三年的禁令数量——但哈里斯认为，这个问题一直困扰着两党的总统。
“我认为最高法院认为这已经完全失控了，”一名DOJ高级官员说，他将这个问题描述为“两党问题”
代表挑战该行政命令的原告的律师驳回了将论点限制在国家禁令范围内的请求，称所请求的救济的影响将对成千上万在特朗普的命令下有可能出生为非公民的人造成“混乱”。
“如果法院同意政府的动议，混乱就会随之而来，”他们认为，并补充说，这个问题的性质要求全国范围内的秩序，以维护“美国公民身份的一致性。”
此外，他们认为限制联邦法官的权力不符合宪法，并且削弱了联邦司法机构制衡行政部门的能力。
“政府认为救济非当事人违反了第三条和公平原则，这是错误的。如果这是真的，法院就不会批准对学校隔离或种族不公正划分的补救措施。法院也不能发布面部救济来回应面部违宪的法律，”他们争辩道。
“希望一切顺利”
洛约拉法学院教授贾斯汀·莱维特表示，目前还不清楚是否会有法官介入出生公民权的法律问题，或者他们是否会坚持全国性禁令的合宪性。
“最大的问题可能不是最高法院周四要回答的问题，”他说。“周四，法院面临的更狭隘的问题是，如果一名法官认定政府做错了什么，它能命令政府为所有人停下来吗?”
但对诺曼·王(Norman Wong)来说，这个案件上升到最高法院是一个令人不安的迹象，表明法院可能不会平衡特朗普潜在的过度行为。他一直在远处看着特朗普政府试图蚕食他的曾祖父帮助实现的权利。
“如果我们输掉这场战斗，情况会变得更糟，”他在最高法院辩论前一周接受采访时说。
Wong的家庭处于美国历史的十字路口。他的曾祖父一生都在旧金山唐人街当厨师，在反华情绪高涨之际，联邦政府试图限制他再次进入美国，他与联邦政府进行了斗争。他在加州海岸的一艘船上被拘留了五个月，因为他的案件一直在最高法院审理。四十年后，美国在二战期间开始拘留日裔美国人，黄西的母亲被送进了拘留营。
根据弗罗斯特的说法，现在，特朗普政府恢复了黄基方舟案核心的法律论点，重新审视了一些历史学家认为是美国历史上黑暗时刻的法律推动。特朗普试图援引《外国敌人法》(Alien敌国Act)，这是一项战时权力，用于在战时驱逐非公民，几乎没有或根本没有正当程序，以清除涉嫌的移民帮派成员，政府正在重复使用前副检察长提出的论点，他曾努力清除黄基方舟。
弗罗斯特说:“他们实际上只是重提霍姆斯·康拉德的观点，这位拥有奴隶的弗吉尼亚人曾为邦联而战，在内战失败后，试图在法庭上获胜。”“康拉德提出的关于中国移民的孩子不能效忠美国、不能忠诚、必须效忠中国皇帝的许多论点——所有这些论点看起来都很像我在特朗普总统领导下的司法部今天提交的摘要中看到的那种论点。”
对王来说，这个案件代表了历史上一个丑陋的例子，不仅威胁到宪法和联邦法律赋予的权利，也威胁到他的家族遗产。
“我想给我的孩子和孙子们最好的希望，”他说。“我必须相信这些事情会发生，我们会让这艘叫做美利坚合众国的船走上正轨——但这需要我们所有人走上正确的道路。”
Norman Wong's great-grandfather helped enshrine birthright citizenship. He says the struggle continues
Norman Wong is in a fight for his family's legacy.
More than a century ago, his great-grandfather Wong Kim Ark -- a U.S. citizen born in San Francisco -- was refused entry into theUnited Statesunder the Chinese Exclusion Act. He sued, and the Supreme Court's decision in his case became the landmark ruling that enshrined birthright citizenship.
Wong, a 75-year-old retired carpenter, says he now fears he is witnessing the dismantling of his family's legacy, as President Donald Trump attempts to use an executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of some noncitizens. The Supreme Court is set totake up the issueon Thursday when justices hear arguments about whether to restrict a series of court rulings that blocked Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.
"On one hand, I feel more proud than ever of being descended from Wong Kim Ark," Wong told ABC News. "But I also feel that it's a struggle that all of us need to participate in, because this is for the soul of our country."
The Supreme Court's decision in the case could have sweeping implications, whether the justices decide to only approach the issue of the legality of nationwide injunctions or wade into the underlying legal arguments over birthright citizenship itself.
'Rewrite the Constitution'
On hisfirst day in office, Trump signed his executive order, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," to limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents. It was challenged immediately, and judges in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington state blocked it from taking effect.
"I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said,blocking the executive orderjust three days into the Trump presidency. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
Trump has argued that only newborns with permanent legal status are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and eligible for birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As Trump issued anunprecedented streamof 140 executive orders during his first few months in office, his administration faced an onslaught of more than 220 legal challenges in federal courthouses across the country. Forced to defend the unilateral actions in court, the Trump administration was dealt with loss after loss, blunting the implementation of parts of his agenda during his first hundred days in office.
"We've seen many Trump proposals, initiatives and orders subject to nationwide injunctions, but that's because he is issuing an unprecedented number of executive orders that seek to rewrite the Constitution and the law," explained University of Virginia school of law professor Amanda Frost.
Trump and his allies have railed against what they call a "judicial coup" and argued that federal judges have overreached by issuing nationwide orders.
'Epidemic proportions'
In March, the Trump administration used its appeal of multiple court orders blocking Trump's birthright citizenship executive order as a vehicle to challenge the use of nationwide injunctions,asking the Supreme Courtto stay the lower courts' orders and curtail the issuance of nationwide orders.
"Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration," former acting solicitor general Sarah Harris argued. "This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched."
Rather than asking the Supreme Court to examine the lawfulness of Trump's executive order, the Trump administration asked the justices to consider the scope of the injunctions blocking the executive order from being implemented. They argue the order, rather than applying to anyone in the United States, should be limited to a specific federal district or only to the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
While the Trump administration has been subject to an unprecedented number of injunctions -- more in one month than during three years of the Biden administration, according to administration officials -- Harris argued that the issue has plagued presidents from both parties.
"I think the Supreme Court sees that this has just gotten totally out of hand," said a senior DOJ official who described the issue as a "bipartisan problem."
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs who challenged the executive order have pushed back on the request to limit the argument to the scope of national injunctions, saying the implications of the requested relief would cause "chaos" for the thousands at risk of being born noncitizens under Trump's order.
"If the Court were to grant the government's motion, chaos would ensue," they argued, adding that the nature of the issue requires a nationwide order to preserve the "uniformity of United States citizenship."
Moreover, they argued that limiting the power of federal judges is inconsistent with the Constitution and curtails the federal judiciary's ability to balance the executive branch.
"The government is wrong that relief benefiting nonparties violates Article III and principles of equity. If that were true, the courts could not have granted remedies for school segregation or racial gerrymandering. Nor could courts issue facial relief in response to a facially unconstitutional law," they argued.
'Hope for the best'
It's unclear if any of the justices will wade into the legal question of birthright citizenship or whether they will stick to the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions, according to Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt.
"The big question probably isn't a question that the Supreme Court's going to answer on Thursday," he said. "The narrower question for the court on Thursday is, if one judge decides that the government's doing something wrong, can it order the government to stop for everybody?"
But for Norman Wong, who has watched from afar as the Trump administration has tried to chip away at the right his great-grandfather helped enshrine, the case's ascent to the Supreme Court is a troubling sign of how the courts may not balance potential overreaches by Trump.
"If we lose this battle, it's going to get worse," he said in an interview a week ahead of the Supreme Court's argument.
Wong's family has existed at a crossroads of American history. His great-grandfather, who spent his life working as a cook in San Francisco's Chinatown, battled the federal government as it tried to restrict his re-entry into the country at a time of soaring anti-Chinese sentiment. He spent five months detained on a boat off the coast of California as his case moved through the Supreme Court. Forty years later -- as the United States began to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II -- Wong's mother was sent to an internment camp.
Now, the Trump administration has revived the legal arguments at the center of the Wong Kim Ark case, according to Frost, revisiting a legal push some historians have viewed as a dark moment in American history. Trump attempted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act -- a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process during wartime -- to remove alleged migrant gang members, and the government is reusing the arguments made by the former solicitor general who fought to remove Wong Kim Ark.
"They're really just reviving the arguments made by Holmes Conrad, the slave-owning Virginian who fought for the Confederacy, and then after losing the Civil War, tried to win it in court," said Frost. "Many of the arguments Conrad makes about how a son of child of Chinese immigrants could not have allegiance to the United States, could not be loyal, had allegiance to the Emperor of China -- all these arguments look a lot like the kind of arguments I see in the briefs filed by the Department of Justice today under President Trump."
For Wong, the case represents an ugly instance of history rearing its head, threatening not only the right enshrined in the Constitution and federal law but also his family legacy.
"I want to hope for the best for my children and grandchildren," he said. "I have to believe that this stuff will come to pass, and we'll right this ship called the United States of America -- but it's going to take all of us to get on the right path."
