Trump push to ban birthright citizenship unconstitutional, US court rules
The three-judge ruling panel in the 9th US circuit court of appeals echoed a district court in New Hampshire that blocked the executive order earlier this month.
'The district court correctly concluded that the executive order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the verdict said.
The case is now one stop further on the long road to the US supreme court.
Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship was signed just hours after the president took office on 20 January and was immediately challenged in a spread of courts across the country. It has faced a tumultuous legal battle ever since. Birthright citizenship is a legal principle that allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen.
In under a month since the executive order's filing, multiple judges across the country have filed injunctions blocking the order.
Trump's administration then took to the supreme court to fight the injunctions. In a major decision, the US supreme court ruled that injunctions by the lower courts were exceeding their given authority, effectively transforming the mechanics of the US justice system. The verdict did not address the legality of the birthright citizenship ban itself.
A loophole was left, however, for those looking to fight the executive order – class action lawsuits. In opposition to the executive order, New Hampshire judge Joseph LaPlante recognized babies across the US as a class that would be affected by the lawsuit and said depriving them of citizenship constituted irreparable harm.
Birthright citizenship was embedded in the US constitution's 14th amendment in 1868, overturning the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision and giving citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans. It was strengthened in 1898 in the Wong Ark case, which upheld the citizenship of American-born Wong Kim Ark in the face of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Indigenous Americans were historically excluded from birthright citizenship, which changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Long a fringe issue in rightwing circles, the effort to repeal birthright citizenship was brought back into Congress in 1991 and has appeared regularly since. Trump's executive order, constitutional or not, marks its furthest foray into the mainstream.
At time of writing the Trump administration was yet to comment on the ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump has spent almost a third of his presidency at his own properties, new report shows
During his recent five-day trip to Scotland, Donald Trump spent most of the time on his own golf courses and hotels. This appears to be par for the course for the president, who has spent almost a third of his second presidency so far at properties that he owns, according to new analysis by Forbes. Out of his first 191 days back in office, 75 of them have been spent at his own businesses at various locations including Florida, New Jersey, Virginia, Nevada, and now Scotland. Of these, over half (45 days) have been spent playing golf, according to online tracker Did Trump Golf Today? – which accounts for about 23 percent of his second term so far. The president visited his courses 16 out of the first 17 weekends back as Commander-in-Chief. According to Forbes, in January, days after retaking the Oval Office, Trump went to Las Vegas to give a speech on his no-tax-on-tips pledge – while staying at his Trump International Hotel. From there he flew to Miami for a GOP conference at Trump National Doral. After a few days spent back in Washington D.C., Trump returned to Florida and visited his Mar-a-Lago estate. In fact, the president's most prized home – that was subject to an FBI raid, during which agents recovered classified documents stored in rooms including the bathroom – has been his most visited residence, having spent 35 days there since January 20. Forbes analysis shows that Trump spent 12 days there in February. The president has spent multiple weekends on his various golf courses – including every single one in March. The Trump golf tracker estimates that this has cost the U.S. tax payer roughly $63 million. The president also hosted a candlelit dinner at Mar-a-Lago for a political action committee established two days after his 2024 victory on March 1. Later that month Trump also golfed at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey. In April, after announcing his controversial 'Liberation Day' tariffs, the president went to Florida for yet another golf tournament at the Doral – the Saudi-backed LIV Golf. Despite heading on a three-country tour of the Middle East in mid-May, the president still found time to visit his properties on either side – spending 13 days in total at Trump residences. After returning from his trip he resided mostly at his clubs in Virginia and New Jersey, according to Forbes. According to the analysis, the president appears to be put off by the Florida heat during summer, instead preferring to spend time in Virginia and New Jersey – rounding off the month with a four-day trip at the latter. This past month, despite a trip to Europe, Trump has kept up appearances at his clubs. The president encouraged world leaders to meet him halfway (and sometimes on the green), with visits from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer at his resort in Turnberry. The president concluded his Scottish trip by opening a new golf course at his resort in Menie, Aberdeenshire, on Tuesday morning, playing a quick final round before heading back to Washington.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is making plans to avoid an RBG situation on the Supreme Court, his next picks could be even more right-wing
Donald Trump's team is reportedly eyeing several extremely conservative judges who could serve as potential Supreme Court picks, should the president get the chance to replace one of the aging justices. Among the names being circulated are Andrew Oldham and James Ho, two conservative judges on the right-wing Fifth Circuit Appeals Court, Amal Thapar, a judge on the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court and a previous contender for the Supreme Court, and Neomi Rao, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. While there are no vacancies on the Supreme Court currently, Justices Clarence Thomas, 77, and Samuel Alito, 75, could potentially retire in the coming years, having both served on the court for several decades. 'We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late [Antonin Scalia],' a White House official familiar with the situation told Time magazine. The official said it was 'premature' to say the White House was preparing for a vacancy. No justices on the court have signaled they are preparing to retire soon. But whenever the opportunity arrives, the White House will have a panel of judges for the president to choose from – an attempt to make the process smoother than Justice Brett Kavanaugh's contentious Senate confirmation hearing. It would also likely make for a quick advancement to the Senate, allowing Trump to add yet another conservative ally to the court regardless of timing. That is similar to how he nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 after former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in the final months of his presidency. Liberals were forced to watch Republicans prevent Barack Obama from filling a vacant seat in 2016 and then, in 2020, Bader Ginsburg's death just two months before a presidential election resulted in yet another rightward shift for the court. Oldham, a judge on the conservative Fifth Circuit Appellate Court, previously clerked for Alito and served as general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He has a history of issuing controversial opinions that have been contested and reversed at the Supreme Court. In one of the more well-known cases, Oldham wrote the appellate court opinion that upheld a controversial Texas law that would have allowed the state to regulate censorship on social media platforms. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed it. He also authored a concurring opinion in the Biden administration ghost gun case, striking down the administration's attempts to regulate them and claiming it violated 'gunsmithing' – the craft of building and modifying firearms. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, too. Oldham is likely to accelerate the president's agenda, having already used fringe legal theories to issue opinions that align with Trump's desires. Also on the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court is Ho, who, in addition to having previously clerked for Thomas, also has a history of issuing controversial opinions. Many of Ho's opinions have upheld theories that allow for restricting immigration in the U.S. – one of the president's main objectives. He recently criticized lower court judges for not allowing the president to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants who have been accused of being gang members. Thapar, who serves as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court, has shown conservative viewpoints in his opinions, such as saying Roe v. Wade was 'wrong.' He also advocated for law schools to teach more 'originalism' – or interpreting the Constitution as it was written, often associated with conservative legal theories – and told donors to withhold donations to schools unless they show a 'commitment to intellectual diversity.' Another potential option is Rao, a judge on the D.C. Appeals Court. Rao has received attention for previously authoring pieces that critiqued a woman who accused someone of sexual assault and affirmative action. Notably, Rao ruled in favor of the Trump administration after it barred an Associated Press journalist from accessing the White House and other press coverage areas, thereby undoing a lower court ruling. Thapar was reportedly on Trump's shortlist of Supreme Court picks in 2018 when former justice Anthony Kennedy retired. However, Trump ultimately went with Kavanaugh. The White House official told Time magazine that Trump will make the final decisions on who to put before the Senate when the time comes to nominate a replacement.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Maxwell tells Trump: Free me and I'll tell all to Congress
Ghislaine Maxwell has said she will testify freely to Congress if Donald Trump frees her from jail. Lawyers for Maxwell, 63, agreed that she would appear before the House Oversight Committee, as long as she could see what questions they planned to ask her about her links to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, in advance. She also asked that she receive legal immunity for any future convictions. Her lawyer requested that Maxwell's questioning take place after the Supreme Court rules on her appeal for her 2021 sex trafficking conviction. Alternatively, her lawyer said, she would speak 'freely and openly' to Congress right now if the president grants her clemency. Maxwell was last week subpoenaed to answer questions before Congress about her late boyfriend, for whom she was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls, meaning she would have been forced to appear in the coming months, anyway. 'Our initial reaction was that Ms Maxwell would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to testify at this time,' David Oscar Markus, her lawyer, said in a letter to James Comer, the committee's Republican chairman ,which was shared with The Telegraph. He added: 'After further reflection, we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established.' Mr Markus wrote that his client 'cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity'. He said that to 'prepare adequately for any congressional deposition – and to ensure accuracy and fairness – we would require the committee's questions in advance'. His letter continues: 'In the alternative, if Ms Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing – and eager – to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, DC, She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.' Earlier this week, Mr Markus wrote to the Supreme Court urging it to look at Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking charges, arguing that a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein dating from 2008 prevented her subsequent prosecution. 'Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case. They routinely include promises that extend to others – co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses,' he wrote to the court. 'If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.' The case of Epstein, who was found dead in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, has continued to reverberate after his death. It has presented a challenge for Mr Trump, who was elected to a second term with a promise to release any outstanding evidence from the case. Many of his supporters believed senior Democrats and other powerful people would be revealed to be at the heart of a child sex trafficking ring. When the Department of Justice announced earlier this month there was no client list and the FBI was recommending there be no further release of material, there was outcry among some. While the president was one of Epstein's many high-profile associates, who also included former president Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, Mr Trump has said he broke off contact with him 20 years ago. When the Wall Street Journal published what it said was a 'bawdy' note from Mr Trump to Epstein for his 50th birthday, he denied having done so and said he was suing the paper and its owner Rupert Murdoch. Last week, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who was previously Mr Trump's private lawyer, interviewed Maxwell for more than nine hours. Amid reports that the daughter of newspaper baron Sir Robert Maxwell, was seeking a pardon, some of Epstein's victims said it would be an act of betrayal to give one. Asked about a potential pardon, Mr Trump told reporters in Scotland over the weekend: 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but I – nobody's approached me with it.'
