A federal appeals court has declared President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting automatic birthright citizenship unconstitutional on Wednesday, blocking its enforcement across the nation.
This landmark decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was a 2-1 ruling and marked the first appellate court’s evaluation of the legality of Trump’s order since the US Supreme Court’s ruling in June that restricted lower court judges’ ability to issue broad national injunctions.
In a June 27 decision, the Supreme Court had curbed the power of lower judges to impose universal injunctions and instructed lower courts to reassess their national blockages of federal policies.
However, this ruling allowed for exceptions, which has enabled a New Hampshire judge to suspend Trump’s order once again through a nationwide injunction aimed at protecting children who would be deprived of citizenship under his policy.
In the majority opinion by the 9th Circuit, the court concurred that the states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—that sued to stall Trump’s policy could rightfully receive a nationwide injunction, asserting that a more restricted order would not provide adequate relief to the states involved.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown expressed approval of the ruling, emphasizing, “The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen.”
In response to this ruling, the Trump administration now has the option to request a broader panel of judges within the 9th Circuit to reassess the case or to push for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which is anticipated to have the final say in the ongoing litigation.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, “We look forward to being vindicated on appeal,” arguing that the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The executive order in question was signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, coinciding with his first day back in office. This directive stemmed from his strict stance on immigration policies.
The order mandated that federal agencies would not recognize the citizenship of US-born children unless they had at least one parent who is a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident, commonly referred to as a green card holder.
The directive quickly faced legal challenges, with attorneys general from 22 Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates contending that it breached the citizenship clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to acknowledge that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
The 14th Amendment asserts 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.”
Initially, US District Judge John Coughenour—the first judge to block this order—termed it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The 9th Circuit upheld his ruling, with US Circuit Judge Ronald Gould writing for the majority. He stated that Judge Coughenour was correct in his view that the executive order violates the citizenship clause by unjustly denying citizenship to many individuals born in the country.
Gould emphasized that a geographically limited injunction would cause harm to the four states involved, as they would be compelled to adjust their governmental benefit programs in anticipation of individuals denied citizenship under Trump’s order.
He remarked, “It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States.”
Judge Gould’s opinion was supported by US Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, both of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents. In contrast, US Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, contending that the Democratic-led states lacked the standing to contest Trump’s order, cautioning against potential judicial overreach.
image source from：kuwaittimes
