On Thursday, a federal judge issued a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during an initial hearing in a multi-state legal battle challenging the order.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour interrupted the Justice Department’s lawyer several times, asking how the order could possibly be deemed constitutional. When Brett Shumate, the attorney, requested more time for a full briefing, Judge Coughenour informed him that the hearing itself was the opportunity to present the case.
The temporary restraining order, requested by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, was the first to be heard in court and applies nationwide.
This case is one of five lawsuits filed by 22 states and various immigrant rights groups across the country. The suits include personal accounts from attorneys general who are native-born U.S. citizens and include the names of pregnant women concerned their children may not gain U.S. citizenship under the new rules.
Judge Coughenour, appointed by Ronald Reagan, pressed the DOJ attorneys hard, saying the order “boggles the mind.”
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour remarked to Shumate. The judge, who has served on the bench for over forty years, noted he had never encountered a case where an action so directly violated the Constitution.
Shumate, expressing respectful disagreement, asked the judge for an opportunity to conduct a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than accept the 14-day restraining order preventing implementation of the executive order.
Later, the Department of Justice responded with a statement asserting that it would “vigorously defend” the president’s order, claiming it “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
“We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the DOJ added.
Lane Polozola, the assistant attorney general for Washington, criticized the government’s stance, calling it “absurd” to claim that children born to parents residing in the country illegally are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
“Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?” he asked. “Must they not follow the law while they are here?”
Polozola also argued that the restraining order was essential, noting that the executive order would immediately force states to spend millions to overhaul healthcare and benefits systems to reconsider citizenship status for applicants.
“The executive order will impact hundreds of thousands of citizens nationwide who will lose their citizenship under this new rule,” Polozola stated. “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case.”
The Trump administration has maintained that the order, which was signed by the president on Inauguration Day, would only affect children born after February 19, the scheduled date for its implementation. Consequently, the administration argues that there is no need for temporary relief.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, speaking to reporters afterward, expressed little surprise at Judge Coughenour’s impatience with the Justice Department’s position, especially given the Citizenship Clause’s origins in one of the darkest chapters of American law — the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not entitled to citizenship.
“Babies are being born today, tomorrow, every day, all across this country, and so we had to act now,” Brown said. He emphasized that it has been “the law of the land for generations, that you are an American citizen if you are born on American soil, period.”
“Nothing that the president can do will change that,” he asserted.
The United States is one of around 30 countries where birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” is granted. Many of these countries are in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.
The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to those born and naturalized in the U.S., and states have interpreted the amendment in this way for over a century.
Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the amendment states: “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’s executive order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen.
A pivotal case regarding birthright citizenship occurred in 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen because he was born on American soil. After traveling abroad, he faced denial of reentry by the federal government, which argued he was not a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
However, some immigration restriction advocates contend that the ruling only applied to children born to parents who were legal immigrants and argue that it’s unclear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the U.S. illegally.
{Matzav.com}