Latest news with #JohnCoughenour
CNN
5 days ago
- General
- CNN
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.
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- General
- Daily Maverick
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action 'blatantly unconstitutional' and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
Reuters
6 days ago
- General
- Reuters
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review
June 4 (Reuters) - The constitutionality of President Donald Trump, opens new tab's executive order to curtail automatic birthright citizenship is set to be considered by a U.S. appeals court for the first time on Wednesday, even as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs his administration's request to let it begin to take effect. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action "blatantly unconstitutional" and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
The Latest: Supreme Court hears arguments in case over Trump's birthright citizenship order
The Supreme Court is hearing its first set of Trump-related arguments in the second Trump presidency. The case stems from the executive order President Donald Trump issued on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The executive order marks a major change to the provision of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to people born in the United States, with just a couple of exceptions. Immigrants, rights groups and states sued almost immediately to challenge the executive order. Federal judges have uniformly cast doubt on Trump's reading of the Citizenship Clause. Three judges have blocked the order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S., including U.S. District Judge John Coughenour. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' Coughenour said at a hearing in his Seattle courtroom. The Supreme Court is taking up emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration asking to be able to enforce the executive order in most of the country, at least while lawsuits over the order proceed. The constitutionality of the order is not before the court just yet. Instead, the justices are looking at potentially limiting the authority of individual judges to issue rulings that apply throughout the United States. These are known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions. Court is adjourned After a short rebuttal from Sauer, arguments are now complete after more than two hours. The Supreme Court typically rules in all its argued cases by the end of June and this one shouldn't be any different. After oral arguments today, it's not out of the question that the court could make a decision on this quickly, but we can't know for sure. The attorney representing private individuals and immigrants makes their case After the states finished their case, Kelsi Corkran, the attorney for pregnant women and immigrant-rights groups fighting Trump's executive order, used her 15 minutes to make her case. Corkran said every judge who has considered the issue has found Trump's order is 'blatantly unlawful' and asked the justices to block the effort to begin enforcing it. Kavanaugh suggested that people who want to challenge the birthright citizenship order might not need nationwide injunctions. Instead, they could bind together and file class-action lawsuits. 'That seems to solve the issue for preliminary relief,' he said. Corkran pushes back. 'That is not actually addressing the court's emergency docket. It's just now we're slapping a label of class certification on it,' she said. A series of questions from Alito at one point seemed to hint at the many other cases the Trump administration is now appealing to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Lower-court judges can be 'vulnerable to an occupational disease,' of believing they can do whatever they want, he said. Even if their decisions are wrong, he said, appeals courts can be reluctant to act quickly to block them. He seemed to suggest that includes his own colleagues on the Supreme Court. 'How do we deal with that practical problem?' he said. Corkran argues it wouldn't. The government hasn't said how they would enforce the order against everyone except the handful of people who sued, much less how they would filter out parents who are part of the groups that have sued, she argued. Even if there were a way, it would likely mean the government would be able to identify the women as non-citizens. That would put many at risk for potential deportation, she said. Trump's Solicitor General wraps up his opening and his challenger steps up Justice Kavanaugh pressed Sauer with a series of questions about exactly how the federal government might enforce 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 press for clearer answers, pointing out that the executive order only gave the government about 30 days to develop a policy. 'You think they can get it together in time?' he said. Justice Brown Jackson appeared deeply skeptical of Sauer's argument. 'Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights,' she said to Sauer. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum stepped up to make his case after justices peppered Sauer with questions. He is arguing on behalf of the states that say they'll lose millions of dollars in benefits available to U.S. children and also have to overhaul identification systems. Feigenbaum asserted in his opening that the 'post-Civil War nation wrote into our Constitution that citizens of the United States and of the States would be one and the same without variation across state lines.' Feigenbaum told the justices that judges should be able to issue orders that affect the whole country, but only in narrow circumstances. Roberts jumps on that last point, asking him to elaborate on why they should only be used sparingly — a question that could be a clue as to how the chief justice is thinking about the issue. Justices try to pin down Solicitor Sauer's argument Justice Kagan cut to the heart of the case by asking Sauer that, if the court concludes Trump's order is illegal, how the nation's highest court could strike down the measure under the administration's theory of courts' limited power. 'Does every single person who is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?' Kagan asked. 'How long does it take?' Sauer tried to answer, but several of Kagan's colleagues, along with the justice, jumped in to say they didn't hear a clear way the court could swiftly ensure the government could not take unconstitutional action. Roberts tried to help by jumping in to note the high court has moved fast in the past, concluding the TikTok case in one month. 'General Sauer, are you really going to answer Kagan by saying there is no way to do this expeditiously?' Coney Barrett asks Sauer. She pressed Sauer to say whether a class-action lawsuit could be another way for judges to issue a court order that could affect more people. He said the administration would likely push back on efforts of people to bind together for a class-action lawsuit, but that it would be another way for cases to move forward. Justice Alito pointed out that multiple states have also sued over the birthright citizenship order and won broader victories. The Trump administration is also arguing that states shouldn't have been able to do that, but Sauer sticks to his point about the nationwide injunctions, saying they yield 'all these sort of pathologies.' Sotomayor returned how Trump's order could affect people, saying it for some babies it could 'render them stateless.' Justices pepper Trump's Solicitor General with questions in oral arguments Arguing first is D. John Sauer, the solicitor general and the government's top attorney before the Supreme Court. Sauer also served as a personal lawyer for Trump as he fought election interference charges filed in 2023. Before that, Sauer served as Missouri's solicitor general and a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Sauer began by taking aim at decisions from lower courts that apply nationwide. He argued that they go beyond the courts' authority and allow people who want to file lawsuits to go 'judge shopping' for those they expect to agree. The decisions are often rushed, he said. 'This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administration,' he said. Nationwide injunctions have become especially frustrating for the Trump administration, as opponents of the president's policies file hundreds of lawsuits challenging his flurry of executive orders. After a series of questions from Justices Brown Jackson and Coney Barrett about the possible implications of nationwide court orders more generally, Justice Gorsuch raised another question about birthright citizenship in particular: 'What do you say to the suggestion in this case those patchwork problems for the government as well as for the plaintiffs justify broader relief?' Sauer responded that it is a problem for the executive branch to deal with. The court issued an opinion unrelated to birthright citizenship The Supreme Court has revived a civil rights lawsuit against a Texas police officer who fatally shot a man during a traffic stop over unpaid tolls. The justices Thursday ordered the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take a new look at the case of Ashtian Barnes, who died in his rental car in 2016 on the shoulder of the Sam Houston Tollway. Barnes was shot by Officer Roberto Felix Jr., who jumped on the sill of the driver's door of Barnes' car as it began to pull away from the stop. Felix's lawyers say he fired twice in two seconds because he 'reasonably feared for his life.' Trump presses for restrictions ahead of arguments President Donald Trump is weighing in ahead of arguments in the birthright citizenship case today. Trump says in an online post that granting citizenship to people born here, long seen as a constitutional promise, makes the country look 'STUPID' and like 'SUCKERS.' He incorrectly asserted the U.S. is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship. While not every country grants it, about 30 other countries do, including Canada. His executive order at the heart of today's case aims to end birthright citizenship for children born to people in the U.S. illegally, something many legal scholars say would require amending the Constitution. Three lawyers will present arguments to the court Solicitor General D. John Sauer is representing the Trump administration in urging the court to allow Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect in at least 27 states. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum is arguing on behalf of the states that say they'll lose millions of dollars in health and other benefits available to U.S. children and also have to overhaul identification systems since birth certificates will no longer serve as proof of citizenship. Kelsi Corkran is representing pregnant women and immigrant rights groups that say chaos will result if Trump's order takes effect anywhere. The justices will take the bench at 10 o'clock Eastern time, but the livestream won't begin immediately. The court will issue at least one opinion before hearing arguments, so it could be 10 minutes before the Chief Justice John Roberts invites Sauer to begin. The livestream will be available on the court's website, or C-SPAN. C-SPAN asked Roberts to allow cameras to carry the case live, but he did not respond to the request, C-SPAN said. The Supreme Court has never allowed cameras in the courtroom. A decision should come relatively soon. The Supreme Court typically rules in all its argued cases by the end of June and this one shouldn't be any different. If anything, an order from the court might come quickly because the legal issue before the justices is not whether Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions are constitutional, but whether to grant the administration's emergency appeals to narrow lower court orders against it while lawsuits proceed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why this Supreme Court hearing is — and isn't — about birthright citizenship
'Blatantly unconstitutional.' That's what U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called President Donald Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship earlier this year. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one,' the Reagan appointee said in blocking Trump's executive order. Other judges around the country followed suit. And yet, the Supreme Court granted a rare hearing on the subject for Thursday. But the court isn't taking Trump's order head-on. The administration didn't ask it to. Rather, while litigation against the order proceeds in the lower courts, the federal government filed emergency applications to the justices, asking them to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's order in three cases. Instead of deciding, as it usually does, whether to grant emergency relief based on the court papers alone, the court set Thursday's hearing for after the term's normally scheduled arguments wrapped up last month. The government's main complaint in this appeal, which combines all three cases, isn't that Trump's order is actually legal — though it will argue that, too, if pressed — but that Coughenour in Washington state and his judicial colleagues in Maryland and Massachusetts overstepped in granting nationwide relief. The bid therefore doesn't fully hinge on the underlying legality of Trump's order — which makes sense from the administration's strategic perspective, given the whole 'blatantly unconstitutional' thing. Indeed, while noting that the cases 'raise important constitutional questions,' the government cast its request as a 'modest' one: for the justices to limit the injunctions to the parties who brought the lawsuits. Thus, rather than crouching in a defensive posture and justifying its illegal order outright, the administration went on offense, casting itself as the victim of wayward judges unduly encroaching on executive prerogatives. That's been a theme for the administration across all sorts of cases in Trump's second term. That lays the groundwork for the court to side with the government without explicitly blessing Trump's order, while simultaneously letting him enforce it (or try to enforce it) against people who aren't party to these suits, which were brought by states, immigrants' rights groups and pregnant women. So even though the government's application isn't about birthright citizenship per se, the potential chaos looming behind the 'modest' request — and the court's willingness to entertain it — can't be ignored. 'Permitting the Executive Order to go into effect would cause chaos across the country for expecting parents, no matter their immigration status,' argued a brief from the immigrants' rights groups and pregnant women. They said that a birth certificate, long considered adequate proof of citizenship, would no longer suffice if Trump's order takes effect. 'The Court should not exercise its equitable powers to reach such an inequitable result, especially when the government does not claim in its application that the policy it seeks to enforce complies with the Constitution,' they urged the justices. They said that if the order takes effect only in some places and only applies to some people, then 'U.S.-born children will be denied their constitutionally guaranteed United States citizenship based on whether their parents or their state is involved in this or another lawsuit.' Contrary to the long-held understanding and practice of automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S., Trump's order said citizenship wouldn't automatically extend to certain children born to noncitizen parents. Specifically, the order would apply: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary . . . and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth. Nationwide injunctions have long drawn complaints from justices in cases having nothing to do with birthright citizenship. The high court could use this case to give new guidance to lower courts about when it's appropriate to grant universal relief. Such guidance could have implications for Trump's second term in all manner of cases, where judges have found all manner of illegalities in his executive actions. It could also have implications going forward in future administrations. But there was no need for the justices to take up the injunction issue in this context, involving a matter long believed to be settled. Of course, if a majority of the Supreme Court thinks Trump's underlying order is lawful, then that's a bigger problem. But if the court doesn't think so and is interested purely in the injunction issue, then it could've picked a different context in which to analyze it, as opposed to this issue in which there are good reasons for nationwide uniformity. The mere consideration of birthright citizenship in this context raises needless anxiety for those potentially affected. The hearing should illuminate what the justices are thinking, and perhaps different justices are interested in different aspects of the appeal. But we should have a ruling relatively soon. The court typically decides the term's cases by July or shortly into July. This rare May hearing, shoehorned into the term, suggests the justices intend to rule by that typical July time frame, if not sooner. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
