Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
-U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda.
A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect.
Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people.
"It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said.
But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
"We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president.
Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday.
The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders.
But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally.
The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds environment ministry notification, junks exemption clause for big projects
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the January 29 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, but struck down the contentious clause exempting certain large building and construction projects from prior environmental clearance. The Supreme Court order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis(Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times) A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held projects with a built-up area above 20,000 square meter, whether industrial, educational, or otherwise, cannot be exempted from the environment impact assessment (EIA) 2006 regime. The court clarified that the notification would also apply to Kerala. Dictating the order, the CJI said, 'It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it.' Observing the apex court had always focused on sustainable development, the CJI said, 'The court while ensuring that development is permitted has also required precaution to be taken so that least damage is caused to the environment and has even ordered costs to be paid for such development activities.' Also Read: Over 70,000 housing units stalled across MMR amid green clearance hurdle The order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis. 'If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out it will have environmental impact even if it's for industrial or educational purposes and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes,' it said. It also said that no exemption can be granted to the education sector in this regard. Also Read: Mumbai sees redevelopment projects worth ₹18,000 crore amid signs of softening sales: Here's what you need to know 'Nowadays education has also become a flourishing industry and thus no reason to exempt such projects from the 2006 notification,' the CJI said. The bench upheld the notification except clause 8 of the January 29 notification which grants exemptions to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meter. The bench said it was impractical for the MoEFCC to appraise every project nationwide, noting the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEA) could handle state-wise evaluations. On February 25, the top court stayed the notification on a PIL filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the EIA's safeguards and threatened eco-sensitive zones. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been struck down or stayed by courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court. The petition claimed that bypassing EC for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would cause irreversible damage to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle entrenched in Indian environmental law. Also Read: Over 25,000 buildings in Mumbai Metropolitan Region eligible for redevelopment with ₹30,000 cr value: CREDAI-MCHI Before the January 29 amendment, EIA 2006 required EC for all construction projects above 20,000 sq m The impugned notification raised the threshold to 150,000 sq m for certain categories and also removed 'general conditions' applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas. A follow-up office memorandum on January 30 expanded the scope of exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw material.
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
Moscow backs Delhi as Trump warns of higher tariffs in 24 hours
In a sharp escalation of trade tensions, US president Donald Trump on Tuesday warned that he would impose higher tariffs on Indian goods within 24 hours, citing India's continued purchases of Russian oil. In an interview with CNBC, Trump accused India of fuelling Russia's war in Ukraine and labelled it the 'highest tariff nation," claiming that India benefits from US trade while not offering reciprocal access. 'With India… what people don't like to say is they have the highest tariff of anybody. We do very little business with them because their tariffs are so high," Trump said, adding, 'We settled on 25%, but I think I'm going to raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours, because they're buying Russian oil. They're fueling the war machine." Russia swiftly stepped up to India's support, denouncing the US stance as part of a 'neo-colonial agenda" aimed at arm-twisting sovereign nations. The spat comes amid ongoing trade negotiations between India and the US, and growing friction over Washington's tariff actions. Steel duty Earlier in the day, India's minister of state for commerce Jitin Prasada told Parliament that New Delhi has not received any response from Washington to its request for consultations under a WTO agreement regarding the steep 50% duty imposed by the US on Indian steel, aluminium, and related products. The US has cited national security concerns, a claim India disputes. 'India has accordingly reserved its right to suspend substantially equivalent concessions (right to impose equal trade measures in response) as the US has not complied with its obligations under the AoS," Prasada said, referring to the WTO's Agreement on Safeguards (AoS). While Prasada's statement was in the context of US tariffs on metals, it reflects a wider hardening of India's position as the US now threatens additional duties tied to geopolitical differences. India and the US have held five rounds of talks on a Bilateral Trade Agreement since March this year, the most recent in Washington from 14-18 July. Prasada also said, 'To safeguard the interests of farmers and domestic industry, international trade negotiations allow for inclusion of sensitive, negative or exclusion lists—categories of goods on which limited or no tariff concessions are granted." 'Intentional targeting' Trade analyst Ajay Srivastava, founder of the think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), said the US is intentionally targeting India because New Delhi has refused to bring non-negotiable issues such as agriculture and dairy to the discussion table. 'It's a known fact that China imports far more oil from Russia than India does; yet, the US is silent on Beijing. This selective pressure on India reflects strategic targeting, not just trade concern," Srivastava said. In 2024, China imported $62.6 billion worth of Russian oil, compared to India's $52.7 billion, as per GTRI data. 'Even the US continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear sector, palladium for EVs, fertilizers and chemicals from Russia, and the European Union remains a key buyer of Russian crude oil, LNG, and petroleum products. Then why is India being singled out?", he asked. Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova rebuked the US over the tariff measures, accusing Washington of 'pursuing a neocolonial agenda" and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. On the US raising tariff barriers against key Global South partners, Zakharova said such actions 'cannot halt the natural course of history." She added that sanctions and restrictions have become a defining feature of the current global order. 'Unable to accept the erosion of its dominance in an emerging multipolar world, Washington continues to impose politically motivated economic pressure on those choosing an independent path," she said. Indian action A day earlier, New Delhi had called the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable." In a statement issued on late Monday, the Ministry of External Affairs had said that like any major economy, India would take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security. 'The US itself continues to import uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear sector, palladium for EVs, fertilizers and chemicals from Russia," the ministry had said. The statement noted that India's Russian oil purchases were driven by a need to secure affordable and reliable energy after traditional suppliers shifted exports to Europe at the start of the Ukraine conflict. 'At the time, the US had actively encouraged India's oil imports from Russia to help stabilize global markets," it added. India's energy imports are aimed at ensuring price stability for domestic consumers, the ministry said, contrasting this with continuing trade between Russia and its critics. 'Unlike India, such trade is not a national compulsion for them," it said. The European Union, it said, recorded €67.5 billion worth of goods trade with Russia in 2024, while services trade stood at €17.2 billion in 2023. Europe's LNG imports from Russia also hit a record 16.5 million tonnes in 2024, surpassing the previous peak of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022. EU-Russia trade also spans fertilizers, mining goods, chemicals, metals and machinery. Russian oil India's oil imports from Russia have declined recently. In May 2025, purchases fell 9.8% to $9.2 billion compared to a year ago, official data shows. In FY24, India exported about $70.1 billion worth of refined petroleum products globally. Europe emerged as the largest regional destination, with exports to the continent valued at $18.4 billion, according to data from the Ministry of Commerce. The Netherlands alone accounted for about $10.9 billion, representing nearly 25% of India's total petroleum product exports during this period—the highest share among European countries—highlighting its role as a key transit hub for Indian refined fuel entering the EU market. This trend has triggered concerns among Western nations that India's trade route could be serving as a backdoor for Russian oil entering the European market. In FY25, the value of India's crude oil imports from Russia stood at about $50.3 billion, making it the largest supplier of crude to India, surpassing traditional sources like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. India imported around 1.75 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian oil between January and June 2025, making it the top supplier in that period. Mint reported on 2 August that India will continue to buy oil from Russia, notwithstanding the penal threat and public criticism from the US earlier this week. In fact, India is even reaping a bigger discount on these purchases. Crude cargoes State-owned refiners—Indian Oil Corp. Ltd (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd (BPCL), and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd (HPCL)—are continuing to procure oil from Russian suppliers. Negotiations are also underway for fresh spot deals, as reported by Mint. The last two or three cargoes have been booked at a discount of up to $3 a barrel, compared to about $1.7 in the earlier purchases, and it is likely to rise further, even if not significantly, after Trump's censure of India for its Russian energy purchases, Mint reported. The discounts on Russian oil have narrowed down to single-digit from the high of around $30 per barrel in 2022. India's state-run oil marketers are also in joint discussions with US firms to secure cooking gas supplies starting next year, signalling a potential deepening of energy ties. The companies are exploring long-term arrangements with American exporters. India traditionally imports most of its LPG from West Asian countries including Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia through long-term contracts, while other major LPG importing countries source it from the US. The US so far has been supplying India LPG in small volumes through spot deals, and this is the first time the Indian companies may have a term deal with US suppliers. On the other hand, China has been a major buyer of LPG from the US.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
20 minutes ago
- First Post
US House panel subpoenas Clintons over Epstein as pressure builds on Trump administration
The subpoenas come at a time the White House has been encountering rising pressure to be more transparent about the Epstein files— documents known to contain names of high-profile individuals related to the disgraced financier's crimes read more Bill and Hillary Clinton have been subpoenaed in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Reuters The US House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton to record their testimony on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, letters posted on its website on Tuesday (August 5) showed. The former president and former secretary of state are two of the many former Democratic and Republican government officials that were probed by investigators in a major escalation of the controversy surrounding the inquiry into Epstein, who reportedly died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The subpoenas come at a time the White House has been encountering rising pressure to be more transparent about the Epstein files— documents known to contain names of high-profile individuals related to the disgraced financier's crimes. Pivots by the Justice Department department, such as saying that Epstein had no secret client list, and confirming that he had died by suicide and that his case was effectively closed, angered many people, including Trump supporters who believe Epstein was murdered in a cover-up. Trump has urged his supporters to drop demands for the Epstein files, but Democrats in the Republican-led Congress, with some support from majority lawmakers, have also been seeking a floor vote to force their release. 'By your own admission, you flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in 2002 and 2003,' Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer wrote to former president Clinton. 'During one of these trips, you were even pictured receiving a 'massage' from one of Mr. Epstein's victims. The White House has been seeking to redirect public attention from Epstein, who was a financier and friend to numerous high-profile people, including Trump. His 2019 prison cell death supercharged a conspiracy theory long promoted by many Trump supporters that Epstein had run an international pedophile ring and that elites wanted to make sure he never revealed their secrets. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD After Trump returned to power in January, his administration promised to release Epstein case files. However, a report by Wall Street Journal reported that Pam Bondi had informed Trump in May that his name appeared several times in the Epstein files. This, against the backdrop of sudden reversal of claims about the Epstein files' existence, have solidified discourse around Trump's involvement in sex crimes. With inputs from AFP
