Appeals court declares Trump’s birthright citizenship order unconstitutional

A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents is unconstitutional, as Fox 5 Atlanta reports.

This decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals continues a nationwide block on the order, potentially paving the way for a Supreme Court examination of presidential authority and the 14th Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier block, stopping Trump’s executive order from taking effect. This executive order sought to abolish automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens.

14th Amendment at heart of dispute

Birthright citizenship derives its legal foundation from the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s administration claimed the policy was a magnet for illegal immigration, with the belief that a presidential executive order could amend it.

However, some legal scholars contended that any alteration to such a fundamental right would require congressional action or a constitutional amendment.

The legal challenge against Trump’s order initially led to a district court decision by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle.

Judge Coughenour was critical of the order, labeling it both politically motivated and unconstitutional. The appeals court’s decision to maintain the nationwide injunction was intended to prevent inconsistent citizenship policies across states.

Judicial opinion divided on nationwide injunctions

“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction,” wrote Judges Hawkins and Gould. Their ruling underscores the need to provide states with complete relief from the ramifications of such an order.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, however, dissented, questioning the authority of states to sue and expressing concern about the broad use of universal injunctions. He cautioned against their expansive application, suggesting careful scrutiny of their use.

The Justice Department argued that the 14th Amendment permits the government to restrict citizenship to some extent, a stance that was not accepted by the court’s majority opinion.

Potential for SCTOUS review ahead

This ruling could trigger a U.S.  Supreme Court review to address the extent of presidential powers and constitutional rights. Multiple lawsuits opposing Trump’s executive order are active in several states, reflecting widespread resistance.

The 9th Circuit’s decision is seen as decisive, as it maintains a consistent approach to citizenship laws across the United States.

It avoids potential administrative chaos that could arise from differing interpretations among the states.

The Supreme Court has traditionally limited nationwide injunctions, making the appeals court’s exception particularly significant. The court justified this stance based on what it said were the potential disruptions that could ensue with varying state-level citizenship policies.

Broader implications for presidential authority unfold

President Trump’s attempt to change birthright citizenship through executive action stirred significant legal and political controversy.

As the legal battle unfolds, the broader implications for the scope of presidential authority remain a central issue.

The ruling by the federal appeals court serves as a reminder to some of the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. legal system. It emphasizes the complexity and significance of interpreting constitutional amendments in today’s political climate.

Observers are keenly watching the potential outcomes as this case may eventually reach the nation’s highest court. The unfolding situation underscores the enduring tension between executive intentions and judicial interpretations of constitutional law.

The post Appeals court declares Trump’s birthright citizenship order unconstitutional appeared first on Washington Digest.