A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to abolish birthright citizenship, reaffirming the constitutional rights of those born on U.S. soil.
This decision was delivered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to uphold a lower court’s nationwide injunction against Trump’s controversial directive.
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by several states, including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, arguing that eliminating birthright citizenship would impose economic hardships on them.
In the majority opinion, Judge Ronald M. Gould expressed that the district court acted appropriately in issuing a universal preliminary injunction.
“The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the States with complete relief,” he stated.
Judge Gould, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, noted that a localized injunction would be impractical.
He explained that migrants affected by the policy would likely relocate between states, causing complications for various social safety net programs requiring verification.
Due to these factors, Judge Gould determined that all states would face the same irreparable harms regardless of geographical limitations on the injunction.
Joining him in the decision was Judge Michael D. Hawkins, also a Clinton appointee.
In dissent, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay described the need for courts to remain cautious in addressing their jurisdictional limits and warned against overreaching.
His comments emphasized the potential consequences of involving courts in divisive issues that may not fall within their authority.
The U.S. Department of Justice has yet to comment on the ruling.
This latest appellate decision follows a preliminary injunction from a district judge in New Hampshire, which blocked Trump’s policy just weeks prior.
The preliminary injunction allowed for class certification for infants who would be directly affected by Trump’s directive.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of the parents of these infants shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court limited the capacity of lower courts to impose sweeping nationwide orders.
Notably, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority had issued a 6-3 decision on June 27, enabling Trump’s directive to take effect after 30 days in all states that did not participate in the lawsuit.
This consolidation involved plaintiffs from numerous states, including Arizona, California, and others, highlighting the widespread concern over the implications of changing birthright citizenship.
Maryland Matters reports that this case is part of the ongoing debate surrounding immigration policy and citizenship rights in the United States.
As the legal battle continues, the ruling from the 9th Circuit sets the stage for potential further examination and argument by the U.S. Supreme Court, ensuring the discussion around birthright citizenship remains at the forefront of national discourse.
image source from：southernmarylandchronicle
