Federal Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

A divided panel of the federal court ruled on Wednesday that President Trump’s executive order won’t enforce the innate illegalization of citizenship, siding with a lower court’s decision that blocks the order.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asserted that Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon are likely to show that the order is unconstitutional.

“The district court rightly concluded that the proposed interpretation of the executive order, which denies citizenship to many born in the U.S., is unconstitutional,” the Court of Appeals stated. “We completely agree.”

This ruling follows a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the use of nationwide injunctions in relation to Trump’s order on birthright citizenship.

Judges Michael Day Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould, both appointed by former President Bill Clinton, made up the majority. In contrast, Trump appointee Judge Patrick J. Boumattay expressed some dissent, arguing that the state had no standing to sue the Trump administration over this order.

Judge Boumattay emphasized the necessity for courts to remain within their jurisdiction and power to order remedies. He pointed out, “We risk getting involved in controversial matters that may go beyond our authority,” asserting that it’s crucial to uphold the limits of judicial power.

This dissenting voice didn’t comment on the actual constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship. However, the majority opinion found that the Democratic-led states deserved a nationwide injunction to protect their interests.

The ruling reaffirms an injunction put in place by Seattle District Judge John C. Corneur. Federal judges in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Massachusetts had also issued injunctions to prevent Trump’s orders from taking effect.

Following the Supreme Court’s prior ruling, which indicated that a nationwide injunction might exceed the Judicial Branch’s constitutional authority, the case remains focused on the injunction concerning Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The High Court, despite its limits, has permitted some plaintiffs to seek universal injunctions when deemed necessary for full relief.

Two courts, specifically the Ninth Circuit and the New Hampshire District Court, have recently issued temporary nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order since the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Seattle District Court “did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction to ensure comprehensive relief for the state.”

The court agreed with the Democratic-led states and lower courts that deemed the executive order unconstitutional.

Trump’s executive order aims to restrict automatic citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.

According to the 14th Amendment, “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.”

Trump asserts that birthright citizenship has been exploited and refers to it as a product of “birth tourism.” His supporters also claim that the amendments from the Civil War era were specifically aimed at children of freed slaves, suggesting that their application to the children of immigrants has been misinterpreted over time.

The White House has not yet responded to requests for comments on this issue.