Related videos:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided this Wednesday to uphold the injunction against the executive order with which President Donald Trump sought to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and other cases.
The litigation could reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
The panel of the Appeals Court, based in San Francisco, rejected the emergency request filed by the Department of Justice to lift the suspension previously imposed by a district judge in Seattle.
The court determined that Trump's decree violated the Constitution and, therefore, could not take effect.
The panel was composed of three judges: one appointed by Trump, another by Jimmy Carter, and a third by George W. Bush.
In their decision, the judges stated that the Trump administration had not demonstrated that its legal argument carried enough weight to justify an emergency intervention.
Judge Danielle Forrest, nominated by Trump, supported the decision in a concurring opinion in which she explained that, while she did not express an opinion on the validity of the decree itself, the administration had not demonstrated the existence of an "emergency" that would justify its immediate implementation.
"Deciding important substantive issues with a week's notice turns our decision-making process upside down," he wrote.
"We should not undertake this task unless circumstances dictate it. They do not here," he added, according to U.S. media reports.
Citizenship by birth
Birthright citizenship in the United States is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.
This establishes that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside".
Historically, this provision has been interpreted as a guarantee that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically receives citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
The United States is one of approximately 30 countries in the world that recognize this principle, known as jus soli or "right of the soil."
The arguments of the Trump Administration
Since his presidential campaign in 2016, Trump has insisted that he would put an end to birthright citizenship, arguing that this policy encourages undocumented immigration and facilitates what he called "birth tourism", a practice where pregnant women travel to the United States with the intention of giving birth on American soil to secure citizenship for their children.
In the executive order that is currently blocked, Trump claimed that the children of non-citizen parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, an interpretation that has been strongly criticized by legal experts.
If it had been implemented, the order would have stripped citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants, as well as those born to parents with temporary visas, including students and temporary workers.
The Department of Justice defended the order, arguing that it was "an integral part of President Trump's broader effort to repair the U.S. immigration system and address the crisis at the southern border."
The case that reached the Ninth Circuit originated from a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of four states led by Washington.
In their arguments, the plaintiffs rejected the notion that Trump's decree was a matter of immigration policy and instead framed it as an issue of constitutional rights.
"This is not a case about 'immigration.' It is about citizenship rights that the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute intentionally and explicitly place beyond the authority of the president to condition or deny," the prosecutors wrote.
Various civil rights organizations have also warned that the order could leave tens of thousands of children born to parents with irregular immigration status in legal limbo, including dreamers, refugees, and asylum seekers.
The possibility of a decision in the Supreme Court
The Ninth Circuit's rejection paves the way for the case to reach the Supreme Court, where the justices will need to decide whether to agree to review it. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been receptive to several immigration policy cases brought by the Trump administration, albeit with divided rulings.
On February 6, District Judge John C. Coughenour had already paused the implementation of Trump's decree, arguing that "if the Government wants to change the exceptional right of the United States to citizenship by birth, it needs to amend the Constitution."
The Ninth Circuit ruling reinforces this position and could shape the debate on birthright citizenship in the coming years.
Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates are celebrating the decision as a key victory for the protection of constitutional rights.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling represents a significant setback for Trump's intention to reform birthright citizenship through an executive order.
Frequently Asked Questions About Birthright Citizenship and Trump's Executive Order
What did the Court of Appeals decide about Trump's order that limits birthright citizenship?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. decided to uphold the stay on the executive order from Trump that aimed to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The judges ruled that the decree violated the Constitution and, therefore, could not take effect.
Why is Trump’s order considered to violate the Constitution of the United States?
Trump's order was deemed unconstitutional because it contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the country and subject to its jurisdiction are U.S. citizens. This principle has been historically interpreted as a guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
What is the argument of the Trump Administration for eliminating birthright citizenship?
The Trump Administration argues that citizenship by birth encourages undocumented immigration and "birth tourism." Trump has maintained that the children of non-citizen parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., an interpretation that has been widely criticized by legal experts. The executive order aimed to limit citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and those holding temporary visas.
What implications does the Ninth Circuit ruling have for birthright citizenship in the U.S.?
The ruling of the Ninth Circuit reinforces the constitutional protection of citizenship by birth and represents a significant setback for Trump's intention to reform this right through an executive order. This ruling could influence future legal debates regarding birthright citizenship and paves the way for the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Filed under:
