Latest news with #CitizenshipClause
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
DOJ presses federal appeals court to reverse ruling blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship
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.
Khaleej Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
What is US birthright citizenship and can Trump end it?
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Thursday on President Donald Trump's bid to broadly enforce his executive order ending birthright citizenship, a principle that has been recognised in the United States for more than 150 years. WHAT IS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP? Anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, which derives from the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment that was added to the US Constitution in 1868. The amendment states: "All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also defines citizens and includes similar language. There is an exception for people born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer with diplomatic immunity because such officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If courts decide the Constitution protects birthright citizenship, then only a constitutional amendment could change that. An amendment would require support from two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures, a process that would likely take years. The Constitution has not been amended since 1992. There were an estimated 11 million immigrants in the US illegally in January 2022, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimate, a figure that some analysts now place at 13 million to 14 million. Their US-born children are considered by the government to have US citizenship. WHAT DID THE TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER SAY? Trump issued the order when he took office on January 20. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born individuals who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration has been one of his most popular policies and he has complained about "birth tourism" or the practice of women from abroad visiting the United States for the purpose of giving birth and conferring US citizenship on their offspring. WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THE PAST? The Supreme Court has not addressed whether the Citizenship Clause applies to US-born children of people who are in the United States illegally. The main birthright citizenship case is from 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that the son of lawful immigrants from China was a US citizen by virtue of his birth in 1873 in San Francisco. The man, Wong Kim Ark, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a visit to China at a time when immigration from China was severely restricted. The Supreme Court also ruled in 1884 in a dispute over voter registration that US-born John Elk was not a citizen because he was born as a member of a Native American tribe and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction. Congress extended US citizenship to Native Americans in 1924. WHAT HAS TRUMP ARGUED TO THE SUPREME COURT? The executive order has been blocked by three US district courts on a nationwide basis for violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to begin carrying out the executive order by narrowing the lower court injunctions to apply only to the plaintiffs in the cases, or several organisations and individuals, 22 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco. It has argued judges lack the power to issue injunctions with nationwide scope. While the administration defended the constitutionality of the executive order, it did not ask the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to resolve that question. The administration has argued that the term "jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause refers to "political jurisdiction," which it said is defined by a person's allegiance. Applying that test, the administration argued that citizenship should be denied to US-born children who did not have one parent legally allowed to permanently reside in the United States. It argued that the universal application of birthright citizenship has created strong incentives to enter the country illegally and led to national security risks from conferring citizenship on people who may have an allegiance to a US adversary. WHAT DO THE LEGAL CHALLENGERS SAY? The states and other opponents of the executive order said it violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, usurped the legislative power of Congress and violated immigration and administrative law. They said the executive order would create chaos by upending the American practice of proving citizenship by presenting a birth certificate, which identifies the place of birth and not the residency status of the parents. Nationwide injunctions issued by a single judge in a case brought by a single or limited number of plaintiffs have become a controversial practice often criticised by Supreme Court justices. The plaintiffs said the birthright citizenship case requires a nationwide injunction to preserve the uniformity of US citizenship.
Arab Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
US Embassy to Indian citizens: Overstay your visa, face deportation, and future ban
NEW DELHI, India, May 19: In the wake of Donald Trump's aggressive stance on immigration, the US Embassy in India has issued a stern advisory to Indian citizens, warning that those who overstay their authorized period of stay in the United States could face severe consequences, including a permanent ban on future travel to the country. The embassy's statement emphasized that Indians traveling to the US on various time-limited visas, such as work visas, student visas, and tourist visas, must adhere to their visa conditions and leave the country before their authorized stay expires. The advisory stated, "If you remain in the United States beyond your authorized period of stay, you could be deported and could face a permanent ban on traveling to the United States in the future." Immigration remains one of the most contentious issues under the Trump administration, which has prioritized strict enforcement of immigration laws. This focus on immigration reform became evident on Trump's first day in office with the signing of an executive order targeting the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. The clause, which grants US citizenship to nearly anyone born on American soil, has been a particular point of contention. While the executive order faces ongoing legal challenges, the administration has ramped up efforts to deport illegal immigrants, arrest violators, and even encourage self-deportation. In a significant shift in US immigration policy, all foreign nationals who have been in the US for over 30 days are now required to register with the federal government under new immigration regulations. Two high-profile deportation cases involving Indian nationals have recently drawn attention. Ranjani Srinivasan, a PhD student at Columbia University, became embroiled in a legal battle after her visa was revoked. She fled to Canada after being accused of participating in a pro-Palestine protest, although Srinivasan has maintained that she did not take part in the demonstration. The Department of Homeland Security used her case as an example of how individuals should self-deport to avoid arrest by immigration authorities. Similarly, Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri faced arrest due to alleged links to Hamas, as his wife is the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former aide to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Suri was eventually released after a court determined that the Trump administration could not substantiate any national security threat posed by him.
The Hindu
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
U.S. Supreme Court could block Trump's birthright citizenship order but limit nationwide injunctions
The U.S. Supreme Court seemed intent on Thursday (May 15, 2025) on maintaining a block on President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was unclear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about would happen if the Trump administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally. Also read: Trump promises to end birthright citizenship: What is it and could he do it? The justices heard arguments in the Trump administration's emergency appeals over lower court orders that have kept the citizenship restrictions on hold across the country. Nationwide injunctions have emerged as an important check on Mr. Trump's efforts to remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Mr. Trump began his second term in January, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court at the start of more than two hours of arguments. Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis. The justices also are considering the Trump administration's pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act. Mr. Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Also read: Tracking U.S. President Donald Trump's executive orders: Graphics The order conflicts with a Supreme Court decision from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment made citizens of all children born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in this case. States, immigrants and rights group sued almost immediately, and lower courts quickly barred enforcement of the order while the lawsuits proceed. The current fight is over the rules that apply while the lawsuits go forward. The court's liberal justices seemed firmly in support of the lower court rulings that found the changes to citizenship that Mr. Trump wants to make would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. Birthright citizenship is an odd case to use to scale back nationwide injunctions, Justice Elena Kagan said. "Every court has ruled against you,' she told Sauer. If the government wins on today's arguments, it could still enforce the order against people who haven't sued, Kagan said. 'All of those individuals are going to win. And the ones who can't afford to go to court, they're the ones who are going to lose,' she said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the administration's approach as 'catch me if you can,' forcing everyone to file suit to get 'the government to stop violating people's rights.' Several conservative justices who might be open to limiting nationwide injunctions also wanted to know the practical effects of such a decision as well as how quickly the court could reach a final decision on the Trump executive order. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer with a series of questions about how the federal government might enforce Mr. Trump's order. 'What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?' he said. Sauer said they wouldn't necessarily do anything different, but the government might figure out ways to reject documentation with 'the wrong designation of citizenship.' Kavanaugh continued to push for clearer answers, pointing out that the executive order gave the government only about 30 days to develop a policy. 'You think they can get it together in time?' he said. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Picking up on that theme, Justice Samuel Alito said he meant no disrespect to the nation's district judges when he opined that they sometimes suffer from an 'occupational disease which is the disease of thinking that 'I am right and I can do whatever I want'.' But Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among several justices who raised the confusing patchwork of rules that would result if the court orders were narrowed and new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in more than half the country. Some children might be 'stateless,' Sotomayor said, because they'd be denied citizenship in the U.S. as well as the countries their parents fled to avoid persecution. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing 22 states that sued, said citizenship could 'turn on and off' for children crossing the Delaware River between Camden, New Jersey, where affected children would be citizens, and Philadelphia, where they wouldn't be. Pennsylvania is not part of the lawsuit. One possible solution for the court might be to find a way to replace nationwide injunctions with certification of a class action, a lawsuit in which individuals serve as representatives of a much larger group of similarly situated people. Such a case could be filed and acted upon quickly and might even apply nationwide. But under questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others, Sauer said the Trump administration could well oppose such a lawsuit or potentially try to slow down class actions. Supreme Court arguments over emergency appeals are rare. The justices almost always deal with the underlying substance of a dispute. But the administration didn't ask the court to take on the larger issue now and, if the court sides with the administration over nationwide injunctions, it's unclear how long inconsistent rules on citizenship would apply to children born in the United States. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Straits Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
What is US birthright citizenship, and can Trump end it?
US President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration has been one of his most popular policies. PHOTO: AFP What is US birthright citizenship, and can Trump end it? WILMINGTON, Delaware - The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 on President Donald Trump's bid to broadly enforce his executive order ending birthright citizenship, a principle that has been recognised in the United States for more than 150 years. Below is a look at US birthright citizenship and Mr Trump's legal authority to restrict it. What is birthright citizenship? Anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, which derives from the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment that was added to the US Constitution in 1868. The amendment states: 'All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also defines citizens and includes similar language. There is an exception for people born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer with diplomatic immunity because such officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If courts decide the Constitution protects birthright citizenship, then only a constitutional amendment could change that. An amendment would require support from two-thirds of both houses of the US Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures, a process that would likely take years. The Constitution has not been amended since 1992. There were an estimated 11 million immigrants in the US illegally in January 2022, according to a US Department of Homeland Security estimate, a figure that some analysts now place at 13 million to 14 million. Their US-born children are considered by the government to have US citizenship. What did the Trump executive order say? Mr Trump issued the order when he took office on Jan 20. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born individuals who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. Mr Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration has been one of his most popular policies and he has complained about 'birth tourism' or the practice of women from abroad visiting the United States for the purpose of giving birth and conferring US citizenship on their offspring. What has the Supreme Court said in the past? The Supreme Court has not addressed whether the Citizenship Clause applies to US-born children of people who are in the United States illegally. The main birthright citizenship case is from 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that the son of lawful immigrants from China was a US citizen by virtue of his birth in 1873 in San Francisco. The man, Wong Kim Ark, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a visit to China at a time when immigration from China was severely restricted. The Supreme Court also ruled in 1884 in a dispute over voter registration that US-born John Elk was not a citizen because he was born as a member of a Native American tribe and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction. Congress extended US citizenship to Native Americans in 1924. What has Trump argued to the Supreme Court? The executive order has been blocked by three US district courts on a nationwide basis for violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to begin carrying out the executive order by narrowing the lower court injunctions to apply only to the plaintiffs in the cases, or several organizations and individuals, 22 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco. It has argued judges lack the power to issue injunctions with nationwide scope. While the administration defended the constitutionality of the executive order, it did not ask the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to resolve that question. The administration has argued that the term 'jurisdiction' in the Citizenship Clause refers to 'political jurisdiction,' which it said is defined by a person's allegiance. Applying that test, the administration argued that citizenship should be denied to US-born children who did not have one parent legally allowed to permanently reside in the United States. It argued that the universal application of birthright citizenship has created strong incentives to enter the country illegally and led to national security risks from conferring citizenship on people who may have an allegiance to a US-adversary. What do the legal challengers say? The states and other opponents of the executive order said it violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment, usurped the legislative power of Congress and violated immigration and administrative law. They said the executive order would create chaos by upending the American practice of proving citizenship by presenting a birth certificate, which identifies the place of birth and not the residency status of the parents. Nationwide injunctions issued by a single judge in a case brought by a single or limited number of plaintiffs have become a controversial practice often criticized by Supreme Court justices. The plaintiffs said the birthright citizenship case requires a nationwide injunction to preserve the uniformity of US citizenship. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
