Massive setback for Donald Trump: Appeals court strikes down birthright citizenship order nationwide
In a 2-1 decision, the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Seattle, declaring that Trump's directive violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
'The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,' said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state led the legal challenge.
The executive order had sought to deny US citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that curtailed the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, the 9th Circuit allowed the broader block, saying anything less would fail to protect the four states involved—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
'It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States,' wrote US Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, who authored the majority opinion.
Gould, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, argued that limiting the injunction geographically would force states to revise government benefits programs in anticipation of families relocating from areas where the order was active.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, contended that the plaintiff states lacked standing to sue and warned that the decision risked "judicial overreach."
Trump's 2019 executive order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the US citizenship of children born on US soil to non-citizen parents who lacked green cards or American citizenship.
The Constitution's Citizenship Clause says: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…'
The case originated from a ruling by Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee in Seattle, who became the first to halt the order.
In his ruling, Coughenour called Trump's directive 'blatantly unconstitutional,' a position now affirmed by the appellate court.
Trump's legal team could now appeal directly to the Supreme Court or request a broader review by the full 9th Circuit panel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Relief for 6,000 residents of Indira Colony as HC halts demolition drive
The Hindu Bureau New Delhi Over 6,000 residents of Indira Colony in north-west Delhi have received a temporary reprieve as the Delhi High Court ordered a stay on a demolition drive scheduled for Saturday and directed that no coercive action be taken until the next hearing on July 31. The court passed the interim order on a petition filed by the Indira Colony Resident Welfare Association, which challenged an eviction notice issued by the Northern Railway on July 4, citing 'unauthorised occupation' of railway land. The court observed that the issue 'requires further examination'. Broken promise Amid legal proceedings, the issue drew sharp political reactions. At a press conference, Leader of the Opposition Atishi said: 'Before elections, the Prime Minister promised every slum dweller a pucca house under the slogan 'Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan'. But ever since the BJP came to power, bulldozers have arrived at poor people's homes.' Former Shalimar Bagh AAP MLA Bandana Kumari said panic spread in the area on July 4 when the notice was pasted. 'This is CM Rekha Gupta's constituency. Despite her assurances, bulldozers razed one jhuggi earlier. Now, Indira Camp faces the same threat,' she said. While there was no immediate response from the BJP, the CM had previously assured residents that no demolition would occur without legal process or rehabilitation, and that any demolitions under way were court-directed. Policy breach The petitioners argued that the eviction violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity, including shelter, and that authorities had not followed due process under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and the 2016 Draft Protocols. 'None of the required steps were taken,' it said, pointing out that the colony appears as Serial No. 74 on the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board's (DUSIB) list of 675 eligible jhuggi jhopri (JJ) bastis. The protocol mandates that the land-owning agency must send a request to DUSIB, which must examine the eligibility of the basti for rehabilitation. Only if found ineligible, can demolition proceedings begin, the plea said. Appearing for the Northern Railway, the Central government's counsel submitted that the land belongs to the railway and that the occupants were in 'illegal possession'. The eviction notice, the counsel argued, was issued in accordance with the law.
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Kerala High Court upholds ban on single-use plastic items
The Kerala High Court has upheld the orders that the State government had issued in 2019 imposing a ban on the manufacture, storage, transport, and sale of single-use plastic items in the State from January 1, 2020. A Bench of Justice Viju Abraham upheld the orders while dismissing petitions filed by Kerala Plastic Manufacturers' Association challenging them. The banned plastic items included plastic carry bags of varying thickness, plastic sheets, single-use utensils like cups, plates, dishes, spoons, forks, straws, and bowls, PET bottles less than 300 ml, flags, and non-woven bags. The petitioners questioned the State government's competence to issue the orders without corresponding Central rules. The State contended that the orders were issued under the Environment Protection Act, a power that the Supreme Court had upheld. On the petitioners' challenging fines imposed on them for illegal manufacture and storage of single-use plastic, the High Court said, 'It is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in appropriate proceedings.' The court further added that the government was duty-bound to implement the directions in government orders as well as rules framed by the Centre.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Soccer players' union hits back at 'autocratic' FIFA and Infantino in fallout from Club World Cup
The global soccer players' union hit back at FIFA and its president Gianni Infantino on Friday, saying their autocratic style of leadership was harming the rights of its members. HT Image 'Football needs responsible leadership, not emperors,' the FIFPRO network said after a meeting of 58 national player unions responded to FIFA pursuing its agenda with unofficial player representatives. 'It needs fewer autocratic monologues and more genuine, inclusive and transparent dialogue,' the union added. FIFA announced two weeks ago it reached a consensus on key issues after Infantino hosted a group of mostly non-recognized officials in New York ahead of the Club World Cup final. The latest rift between soccer's governing body and its players' unions flared while the European Commission in Brussels is considering a formal complaint against FIFA. It was filed by FIFPRO's European division and national leagues in Europe against FIFA's style of governance and decision-making. FIFA denounced what it called Friday the union leadership's 'increasingly divisive and contradictory tone" in pursuing a public relations battle "to preserve their own personal positions and interests." FIFPRO said Friday its core concerns included an overloaded global match calendar with too many games for elite players, lack of physical and mental recovery periods and extreme playing conditions. Players at the month-long Club World Cup in the United States reported feeling dizzy and unwell in the heat of daytime games played to appeal to worldwide TV audiences. The 63-game tournament backed by Saudi Arabian money was lucrative for clubs, especially in Europe, though FIFA added it to the schedule without formally consulting players. The tournament, FIFPRO said, was 'celebrated by President Infantino despite being held under conditions that were extreme and inappropriate for any human being, demonstrating a troubling insensitivity to human rights, even when it concerns elite athletes. 'FIFPRO reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to protecting the rights of men and women players — rights which are being seriously undermined by commercial policies imposed by its autocratic system of governance,' the Netherlands-based union said of FIFA. 'This is a model that puts the health of players at risk and sidelines those at the heart of the game,' FIFPRO said, adding it was 'unacceptable for an organization that claims global leadership to turn a blind eye to the basic needs of the players.' FIFA responded by challenging the union to publish its statutes and 'transparent annual accounts.' 'Let us be clear: you cannot preach transparency while operating in opacity,' the world soccer body said. FIFPRO has not had a formal working agreement with FIFA since the previous one expired in 2023. ___ AP soccer:
