Appeals court: Trump's birthright citizenship EO unconstitutional
July 24 (UPI) -- A divided federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling Wednesday. Though already blocked by the courts, Wednesday's ruling marks the first time an appellate court has judged the merit's of Trump's executive order.
"We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the three-judge panel said in its ruling.
Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, stating the states lacked standing to bring the challenge.
Trump issued his executive order among his first actions after being inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. It has since been met with challenges in court in lawsuits filed by both states and civil rights organizations.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War to grant citizenship to people who were born in the United States, including children of formerly enslaved Black people.
The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment should be narrowly interpreted so that birthright citizenship is not granted to children if their parents are undocumented or if their parents' presence was lawful but temporary, such as those on work or student visas, at the time of birth.
Trump, who campaigned on leading an anti-immigration administration, had vowed during his campaign to end birthright citizenship, despite legal experts questioning his ability to do so.
The Democratic-led states countered that denying citizenship to children born here is unconstitutional, and that if his executive order was allowed to stand newborns would lose their ability to participate in American society.
Washington State, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois filed their challenge to the executive order on Jan. 21. They were awarded an injunction in the case in early February. And last month, in a win for Trump in the case, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines 6-3 in a case that consolidated the plaintiffs from three separate litigations, that judges could not issue nationwide injunctions against the president, but allowed those in class-action lawsuits.
"The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Wednesday. "He cannot strip away the rights, liberties and protections of children born in our country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Japan will invest $550 billion in US at his direction. It may not be a sure thing
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is bragging that Japan has given him, as part of a new trade framework, $550 billion to invest in the United States. It's an astonishing figure, but still subject to negotiation and perhaps not the sure thing he's portraying. "Japan is putting up $550 billion in order to lower their tariffs a little bit," Trump said Thursday. 'They put up, as you could call it, seed money. Let's call it seed money.' He said 90% of any profits from the money invested would go to the U.S. even if Japan had put up the funds. 'It's not a loan or anything, it's a signing bonus,' the Republican president said, on the trade framework that lowered his threatened tariff from 25% to 15%, including on autos. A White House official said the terms are being negotiated and nothing has been formalized in writing. The official, who insisted on anonymity to detail the terms of the talks, suggested the goal was for the $550 billion fund to make investments at Trump's direction. The sum is significant: It would represent more than 10% of Japan's entire gross domestic product. The Japan External Trade Organization estimates that direct investment into the U.S. economy topped $780 billion in 2023. It is unclear the degree to which the $550 billion could represent new investment or flow into existing investment plans. What the trade framework announced Tuesday has achieved is a major talking point for the Trump administration. The president has claimed to have brought trillions of dollars in new investment into the U.S., though the impact of those commitments have yet to appear in the economic data for jobs, construction spending or manufacturing output. The framework also enabled Trump to say other countries are agreeing to have their goods taxed, even if some of the cost of those taxes are ultimately passed along to U.S. consumers. On the $550 billion, Japan's Cabinet Office said it involves the credit facility of state-affiliated financial institutions, such as Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Further details would be decided based on the progress of the investment deals. Japanese trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa, upon returning to Japan, did not discuss the terms of the $550 billion investment. Akazawa said he believes a written joint statement is necessary, at least on working levels, to avoid differences. He is not thinking about a legally binding trade pact. The U.S. apparently released its version of the deal while Japanese officials were on their return flight home. 'If we find differences of understanding, we may have to point them out and say 'that's not what we discussed,'' Akazawa said. The U.S. administration said the fund would be invested in critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, computer chips and shipbuilding, among other industries. It has said Japan will also buy 100 airplanes from Boeing and rice from U.S. farmers as part of the framework, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said would be evaluated every three months. 'And if the president is unhappy, then they will boomerang back to the 25% tariff rates, both on cars and the rest of their products. And I can tell you that I think at 25, especially in cars, the Japanese economy doesn't work,' Bessent told Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle.' Akazawa denied that Bessent's quarterly review was part of the negotiations. 'In my past eight trips to the United States during which I held talks with the president and the ministers," Akazawa said. 'I have no recollection of discussing how we ensure the implementation of the latest agreement between Japan and the United States.' He said it would cause major disruptions to the economy and administrative processes if the rates first rise to 25% as scheduled on Aug. 1 and then drop to 15%. 'We definitely want to avoid that and I believe that is the understanding shared by the U.S. side,' he said. On buying U.S. rice, Japanese officials have said they have no plans to raise the current 770,000-ton 'minimum access' cap to import more from America. Agricultural Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan will decide whether to increase U.S. rice imports and that Japan is not committed to a fixed quota. Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, has suggested that the Japanese agreement is putting pressure on other countries such as South Korea to strike deals with the U.S. Trump, who is traveling in Scotland, plans to meet on Sundayv with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss trade. 'Whatever Donald Trump wants to build, the Japanese will finance it for him,' Lutnick said Thursday on CNBC. 'Pretty amazing.' ___ Yamaguchi reported from Tokyo. Josh Boak And Mari Yamaguchi, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
UPI
21 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
22 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.'
