An appeals court has halted President Donald Trump's attempt to revoke birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens born in the U.S.
According to Daily Mail, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals continued to block an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship for these children, marking a significant legal roadblock for the Trump administration.
On January 20, amidst significant national debate, President Trump took a bold step by signing an executive order intended to terminate birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents in the United States. This move aimed directly at altering the application of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
However, this initiative faced immediate legal challenges. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a nationwide injunction on January 23, merely days after Trump's executive order. A preliminary injunction, which is indefinite, soon followed, freezing the policy pending further legal scrutiny.
Judge Coughenour's ruling was firm in deeming the policy to be unconstitutional. He argued that the executive order effectively sought to modify the U.S. Constitution via presidential decree, a power he implied was beyond the president's reach. This prompt judicial response set the stage for an escalated legal battle.
The Trump administration, seeking relief from Coughenour's decision, approached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based court, however, allowed the earlier order to stand, forming a substantial judicial barrier against the executive order.
The merits of the appeal by the administration were scrutinized, and the appellate court, composed of Judges William Canby, Milan Smith, and Trump appointee Danielle Forrest, found them lacking. The court stated that the administration had not convincingly shown that it was likely to succeed if the case were to escalate further in the judicial system.
In her concurring opinion, Judge Forrest highlighted the necessity for courts to function independently of political ideology or preferences, emphasizing that judicial haste could undermine public trust in the legal system.
This setback in court for President Trump underlines the longstanding interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, where the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship, notably in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. Here, the court recognized the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to foreign parents.
Democratic-led states, part of the contention against the executive order, argue that the order infringes upon the explicit citizenship rights established by the Fourteenth Amendment, casting the dispute not as one about immigration but fundamentally about constitutionally guaranteed citizenship rights.
In the public arena, opinion is divided. Polls suggest varying levels of support for ending birthright citizenship, significantly influenced by the way questions are phrased, particularly concerning illegal immigration. J.L. Partners’ James Johnson noted that public reactions vary widely depending on explanations provided about consequences and contexts.
The legal and public debates are set to continue with arguments before the appellate court expected in June. This timeline gives both opponents and proponents of the order a platform to refine their legal and public positions as the nation watches closely.
The administration's argument pertains strongly to issues of immigration and its broader implications. Yet, the courts have thus far sided with maintaining the status quo in alignment with historical interpretations of the Constitution.
As the legal processes unfold, the White House, along with the Justice Department, remains silent, having not commented on the ongoing judicial proceedings. Their response will be crucial as they consider their next steps in what has become a pivotal issue in national policy discourse.