Trump Signs Executive Order on Citizenship
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Values of American Citizenship.” This order is set to take effect on July 27 and aims to establish a new U.S. policy that prevents mothers from being considered illegal immigrants while also stopping fathers from issuing citizenship documents to those who are not American citizens or permanent residents at the time of a child’s birth.
It appears that liberals are pleased with the idea of making citizenship more accessible for children born on American soil to non-citizens. This aligns with a campaign promise to end birthright citizenship.
Trump has won several legal battles over this contentious issue, but the future of this measure may soon hinge on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, following a ruling from the Ninth Circuit.
“This is still in a preliminary stage. It’s not a merit ruling yet,” was noted by legal analysts.
On January 21, several states, including Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint argues that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. It contends that Trump lacks the authority to dictate who should or should not be granted citizenship at birth.
A U.S. district judge based in Seattle, John Corneau, indicated that the order likely exceeds the powers originally granted to federal courts by Congress, leading him to block the implementation of the law and issue a universal injunction.
A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this injunction with a 2-1 decision.
Interestingly, the two judges who supported the injunction were appointed by Bill Clinton, while the dissenting judge was appointed by Trump, arguing that the state lacks standing to bring the case.
Ronald Gould, one of the Clinton-appointed judges, stated in a majority opinion that the executive order is invalid and inconsistent with the language concerning citizenship in the 14th Amendment, which states that all individuals born in the U.S. are subject to its jurisdiction.
Gould added, “The district courts did not abuse their discretion in issuing a universal injunction to grant full relief to the state. A universal interim injunction is necessary to fully remedy the states’ claims.”
The Court of Appeals chose not to address the claims made by individual plaintiffs in a related case.
On July 10, a judge in New Hampshire granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that challenges Trump’s order regarding illegal immigrants and their children.
Judge Joseph Laplante, appointed by George W. Bush, issued a temporary injunction in this case, offering protection against the order’s enforcement.
Although he delayed his decision to allow for an appeal by the Trump administration, reports suggest that his injunction was promptly put into effect.
Dr. John C. Eastman, from the Claremont Institute’s Constitutional Law Center, remarked that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is still preliminary and confirms the national interim injunction, hinting at further developments but noting it isn’t a final ruling.
“People born to parents who did not agree to comply with U.S. law are not citizens,” he added.
Looking ahead, Eastman speculated that a request for a stay in the Supreme Court could occur soon, but it remains in the preliminary phase without a definitive ruling on its merits.
Contrasting this view, Gerald L. Neuman, a professor at Harvard Law School, suggested that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning was sound. He explained that the understanding of the citizenship clause was well-established, and the intent of Congress should be clear based on the INA adopted in 1952.
Neuman noted that if the Supreme Court were to rule on the matter, it could clarify or modify constitutional provisions or laws directly.
Lastly, Professor Gregory Gelman from Syracuse University commented on the importance of the ongoing legal cases, expressing skepticism about their significance. He contested the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the citizenship clause, emphasizing that it includes stipulations about being “subject to jurisdiction” in the U.S.
He referenced the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, which stated that children born to permanent residents are indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction, though it didn’t eliminate all exceptions to citizenship.
Ultimately, Gelman believes it’s reasonable to assert that children born to parents who are not compliant with U.S. law aren’t citizens, thereby adding a layer of complexity to the debate surrounding birthright citizenship.
