Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship
In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to terminate birthright citizenship. This decision upholds a previous ruling by a federal judge in New Hampshire, asserting that the order is unconstitutional.
The appeals court’s 2-1 decision further prevents the enforcement of Trump’s directive, which aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country. The issue is now positioned to potentially be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Judge Michael Hawkins and Judge Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, agreed with the district court’s interpretation, stating, “The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.”
Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the states involved in the lawsuit lack the standing to sue. Despite his dissent, the court maintained the universal injunction, asserting that it was necessary to provide complete relief to the states involved.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” remains at the heart of this legal debate. Justice Department lawyers argue that the clause does not automatically grant citizenship based solely on birth location.
The states challenging the order — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — contend that this interpretation contradicts the straightforward language of the 14th Amendment. They also cite a landmark 1898 Supreme Court case that affirmed the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents due to his birth on U.S. soil.
President Trump’s executive order declared that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother lacks legal immigration status or is only temporarily in the country and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. This has led to at least nine lawsuits across the country challenging the order.
The White House and the Justice Department have not issued any comments in response to the recent ruling. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has limited lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, yet the 9th Circuit found an exception in this particular case.
For further details on the implications of this ruling, visit this link and this article. For an analysis of Trump’s immigration policies, check out this piece.
