logo
DOJ presses federal appeals court to reverse ruling blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship

DOJ presses federal appeals court to reverse ruling blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship

CNN6 days ago

The Justice Department on Wednesday pressed a federal appeals court to reverse a judge's ruling that blocked nationwide President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.
The hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals represents the first time one of the nation's intermediate courts has heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the controversial policy, which was blocked by several courts earlier this year before it could take effect.
The hourlong hearing unfolded at a courthouse in Seattle comes as the Supreme Court is considering whether it should modify the lower-court injunctions so that Trump can begin partially enforcing the policy while the legal challenges are resolved.
'Our position is very firmly grounded in text, history and precedent. But I do want to be clear that the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause sets a floor for birthright citizenship and not a ceiling, so there's nothing in our position that would prevent Congress – if it saw fit and on the terms it saw fit – from granting citizenship to the children of foreigners who are in the country temporarily or unlawfully,' DOJ attorney Eric Dean McArthur told the court.
Some of the discussion on Wednesday concerned whether the appeals court should also narrow the reach of the ruling issued in February by US District Judge John Coughenour, with McArthur struggling to answer some questions about how the policy would apply to certain groups of immigrants – like asylum seekers – because officials haven't been able to craft guidance implementing Trump's executive order due to the series of court orders.
'One of the problems with the injunction is that it enjoined the government from even explaining how this order would be implemented,' McArthur said at one point. 'So, how the executive order, if and when it is allowed to take effect, would apply to various categories like asylees, like refugees, is not clear at this point.'
But given the Supreme Court's pending ruling on whether the injunctions should be reined in, McArthur suggested later that the appeals court shouldn't yet 'put pen to paper' on its own decision.
One member of the panel – Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee – asked questions throughout the hearing that were sympathetic to the administration's arguments, including whether a key 19th century Supreme Court Case offered a more limited understanding of who the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause applies to.
Bumatay also pressed an attorney representing the states challenging the policy on whether a nationwide injunction was necessary at this point – an argument the administration has consistently pushed after courts blocked the policy across the board.
'The harms to the states that would flow from a piecemeal rule are the same harms that will flow from the rule itself,' Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said.
'Babies will be born in non-plaintiff states, they will not receive a Social Security number, their families will move into our states and when they arrive here we will not have any way under our existing systems to enroll them in programs that they are entitled to participate in,' he added.
A different panel of the 9th Circuit declined earlier this year to put Coughenour's ruling on hold, and federal appeals courts in Boston and Richmond similarly rejected requests from the administration to undo other rulings blocking Trump's policy.
Trump's order, titled 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' seeks to bar the federal government from issuing 'documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any child born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or were in the states lawfully but temporarily.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DOJ supports lawsuit challenging Oregon's voter roll maintenance
DOJ supports lawsuit challenging Oregon's voter roll maintenance

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

DOJ supports lawsuit challenging Oregon's voter roll maintenance

PORTLAND, Ore. () — The United States Department of Justice is responding to a lawsuit filed by a conservative organization against Oregon, alleging the state has not adequately maintained lists of eligible voters in the state. On Friday, the DOJ filed a , explaining the federal government is following the case as it involves the National Voter Registration Act. The lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2024, by the conservative organization Judicial Watch and the Constitution Party of Oregon against then-Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin Valade, claiming Oregon violated the NVRA by not maintaining its voter rolls and making voter roll inspection records public. As Griffin Valade is no longer in office, the current Oregon Secretary of State, Tobias Read, is now named in the lawsuit. Esquire names Portland bar among the best in the U.S. in 2025 Now, the U.S. Department of Justice is adding its own response to the lawsuit. The DOJ explained that the U.S. Attorney General is tasked with enforcing NVRA mandates, citing a March executive order from President Donald Trump, stating the attorney general will enforce voter-list requirements under the NVRA. The order also directs the attorney general to enter 'information-sharing agreements with state election officials' to find cases of election fraud. Additionally, the order says that states that do not comply could face 'prioritized federal enforcement of election integrity laws and loss of funding.' 'Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in Oregon are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. 'States have specific obligations under the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA, and the Department of Justice will vigorously enforce those requirements.' In the DOJ's statement of interest, the agency explained, 'This case presents important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act,' adding, 'Congress has vested the Attorney General with authority to enforce the NVRA on behalf of the United States.' 'Accordingly, the United States has a substantial interest in ensuring proper interpretation of the NVRA. The United States submits this Statement of Interest for the limited purpose of addressing the requirements under the NVRA for states to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters,' the DOJ wrote. Portland middle school goes into lockdown while teen suspect rams cars outside The DOJ noted that before Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit, the organization sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Griffin Valade on August 4, 2023, regarding several NVRA topics and requested public records, including a list of the names and addresses of voters who were sent, for example, notices by the state to confirm a change of residence and which voters responded. The letter from Judicial Watch also sought records for communications, voter list maintenance manuals and audits. According to the DOJ, a support desk analyst from the Oregon Central Voter Registration System responded to the request, explaining it would take about 5,000 hours to get the requested information, in part, because it would require consultation with different county election officials. 'After internal review, we have identified significant additional labor cost to provide a full data set of returned voter notification cards (VNCs). Counties have historically used slightly different processes and have latitude to define some process steps in our current system. Researching this historical information would require significant consultation with county officials, including some who may have retired, and significant additional review of data by the SOS after such consultation. We estimate this work would take approximately 5,000 hours to complete due to the level of customization required for each of the 36 counties in Oregon.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The lawsuit alleges that the response shows Oregon failed to comply with the NVRA. ''NVRA and related federal regulations require Oregon, and not its counties, cities, or local authorities, to maintain and make available statewide records of Confirmation Notices sent and of responses to them,'' the lawsuit alleges, furthering that former Secretary Griffin Valade was unable to fulfill her statutory duty unless she has access to voter list maintenance records. The lawsuit claims that the NVRA supersedes any Oregon practice. In the DOJ's statement of interest, the department added, 'the state holds responsibility for Section 8(i)'s requirements and cannot delegate its responsibility, whether or not under state law the county clerks are primarily responsible for, and carry out, work involved in meeting those NVRA obligations.' ODOT cracks down on 'fatigued, unqualified' commercial truck drivers on I-84 In its lawsuit against the state, Judicial Watch alleges that Oregon's voter rolls have 'large numbers of old, inactive registrations; and that 29 of Oregon's 36 counties removed few or no registrations as required by federal election law.' KOIN 6 News has reached out to Judicial Watch and the Constitution Party of Oregon. This story will be updated if we receive a response. In a statement to KOIN 6 News, Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said, 'I can't comment on ongoing litigation. What I can say is that we take our responsibility to maintain secure, accurate voter rolls seriously. Oregonians want and deserve fair and free elections. We must do everything in our power to deliver.' 'Immediate threat to public safety': Longview cracks down on unsanctioned camping According to the organization's website, Judicial Watch is self-described as 'a conservative, non-partisan, educational foundation which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.' 'The motto of Judicial Watch is 'Because no one is above the law.' To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities,' Judicial Watch's website says. The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, has also previously given legal advice to then-former President Donald Trump regarding Trump's retention of presidential records, reported in 2022. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Terry Moran out at ABC News following X post attacking Trump, Stephen Miller
Terry Moran out at ABC News following X post attacking Trump, Stephen Miller

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

Terry Moran out at ABC News following X post attacking Trump, Stephen Miller

ABC News correspondent Terry Moran is leaving the network after he took aim at President Donald Trump and top White House aide Stephen Miller in a now-deleted post on X. "We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew," a spokesperson for ABC News confirmed to Fox News Digital. "At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism," the spokesperson added. Moran found himself in hot water both inside and outside the Disney-owned network when he called Trump and Miller "world-class" haters early Sunday morning. Moran, who's been with the network since 1997, was initially suspended after ABC News honchos woke up to the viral backlash.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store