Appeals court blocks Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, upholding lower court order
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon challenging Trump's Jan. 20 birthright citizenship executive order would be likely to succeed in demonstrating that it is unconstitutional.
'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is Unconstitutional,' read the appeals court's majority opinion. 'We fully agree.'
3 The appeals court ruling comes after the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions in response to lawsuits against Trump's birthright citizenship order last month.
AP
Judges Michael Day Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould, both appointees of former President Bill Clinton, ruled in the majority, while Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, partially dissented.
Bumatay argued that the states didn't have standing to sue the Trump administration over the order.
'Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief,' Bumatay wrote.
'Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds,' he added. 'No matter how significant the question or how high the stakes of the case — at all times, we must adhere to the confines of 'the judicial Power.''
The Trump-appointed judge did not express an opinion on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.
The judges in the majority found that the Democrat-led states were entitled to a nationwide injunction, because a narrower block would not provide them with 'complete relief.'
The ruling keeps an injunction issued by Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour in place.
Federal judges in New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts have also issued sweeping universal injunctions blocking Trump's order from taking effect.
3 The appeals court found that Democrat-led states challenging the executive order were likely to succeed.
Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire / SplashNews.com
The appeals court order comes after the Supreme Court ruled last month that nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges 'likely exceed' the judicial branch's constitutional authority.
The case centered on injunctions related to Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, and the high court curtailed the ability of federal judges to block presidential policies.
The justices, however, allowed some plaintiffs — including those in class-action lawsuits and states — to continue to seek universal injunctions if needed for complete relief.
Both avenues have been pursued by plaintiffs seeking to stop Trump's directive.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, two courts — the Ninth Circuit and a New Hampshire district court — have issued temporary nationwide injunctions of Trump's birthright citizenship order.
The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Seattle district court 'did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief.'
3 The appeals court agreed with the Democrat-led states and the lower court that deemed the order unconstitutional.
Eric Kayne/ZUMA / SplashNews.com
Trump's executive order seeks to only grant automatic citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.
The 14th Amendment stipulates that '[a]ll 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 maintains that birthright citizenship has been abused and ushered in an era of 'birth tourism,' in which foreign nationals have babies in the US to give their children citizenship.
The president and his allies have also argued that the Civil War-era amendment was originally aimed at the children of freed slaves, and has since been improperly interpreted as applying to the children of migrants.
The White House did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump delivers immigration message on Scotland visit
1 of 3 | President Donald Trump played golf in Scotland Saturday morning, teeing it up at his Trump Turnberry golf resort ahead of meetings with European lawmakers and delivering a message after leaving the White House on Friday (pictured). Photo by Will Oliver/UPI | License Photo July 26 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump played golf in Scotland Saturday morning, teeing it up at his Trump Turnberry golf resort ahead of meetings with European lawmakers and delivering a message. "I say two things to Europe: Stop the windmills. You're ruining your countries. I really mean it, it's so sad. You fly over and you see these windmills all over the place, ruining your beautiful fields and valleys and killing your birds," Trump told reporters after arriving on Friday. "On immigration, you better get your act together. You're not going to have Europe any more," he said. Trump is scheduled to discuss trade during a Monday meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Scottish First Minister John Swinney. He is also expected to meet with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen during the four-day visit to Scotland. The delegation will start arriving Saturday and include European trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic, as well as von der Leyen, who Trump referred to as a "highly respected woman." U.S. officials and their EU counterparts are continuing attempts to reach a deal before an Aug. 1 deadline that will see 30% reciprocal tariffs take effect on all EU member states. The United States and Britain reached a deal in June on tariffs between the two countries, although Trump and Starmer were expected to iron out details during their meeting. Protestors demonstrated against Trump's visit in both Edinburgh and Aberdeen Saturday morning, including outside the Trump-owned golf course. He will also visit another of his privately-owned courses, Trump International Scotland in Aberdeenshire, during the trip. "We are really excited, across this whole weekend, there's so many campaign groups turning out in the streets, taking in action in their communities or at rallies like this. It's kind of like a carnival of resistance," demonstrator Anita Bhadani told the BBC outside of the U.S. Consulate General's office in Edinburgh Saturday, after helping to organize the Stop Trump Coalition. The coalition said its purpose is to "defeat the politics of Trumpism, and to promote an alternative, democratic vision of the world based on peace, social justice and international cooperation."
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
WASHINGTON — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Paramount, Skydance expected to close deal on Aug. 7
Paramount and Skydance announced Friday that, with the Trump administration's approval, the highly anticipated merger between the entertainment giants is expected to take place next month. The Aug. 7 date, unveiled in a press release, comes after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday allowed Skydance's acquisition of Paramount to move forward after the merger was first proposed last year. FCC Chair Brendan Carr in announcing the decision said he welcomed Skydance's commitment to remaining 'unbiased' in its journalism and willingness to promote 'a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum.' 'Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly,' Carr added. 'It is time for a change.' The move caps off months of turmoil between Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, and President Trump. Trump sued CBS's '60 Minutes' last year after he argued an interview it aired with former Vice President Harris was altered in her favor during the 2024 presidential election cycle. While the company fought the claims, including releasing a full transcript from the episode, it ultimately settled with the administration for $16 million. Those funds are set to go to Trump's eventual presidential library. The news outlet has also faced criticism in recent days after CBS made the decision to sunset 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' next May, after more than 30 years on air. Paramount said the move was based on finances, but critics have argued the settlement and Skydance deal were likely involved — and bribery allegations have been floated. Comedian Stephen Colbert, who has hosted the show since 2015, has been openly critical of the merger. Colbert blasted the network earlier this week for choosing to axe the show and thanked those who have reached out in support, including Democrats, press freedom advocates and many of his late-night counterparts. He added that 'one key mistake' the network made when moving forward with the plan is that 'they left me alive.' Colbert also lashed out at Trump after the president said in a post online that he 'absolutely' loved that the comedian was getting 'fired.' 'How dare you, sir,' the host responded. 'Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism: 'Go f‑‑‑ yourself.'' Under the terms of the $8 billion merger, the company will become 'New Paramount' and will be led by Trump-ally and billionaire David Ellison, the son of tech tycoon and Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
