A federal appeals court issued a landmark ruling on Wednesday against the executive order issued by Trump that sought to eliminate the right to citizenship by birth for the children of undocumented immigrants and individuals with temporary immigration status.
This is the first time that a court of appeals has formally declared that this order is "unconstitutional," thus supporting the prior injunctions issued by lower courts, and paving the way for a potential final ruling by the Supreme Court.
The ruling, issued by a panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco, was approved by a majority of 2-1.
Judges Ronald Gould and Michael Hawkins, both appointed by former President Bill Clinton, agreed that "the district court correctly concluded that the interpretation proposed in the Executive Order, which denies citizenship to many individuals born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We are in complete agreement," as reported by U.S. agencies and media outlets.
This ruling reaffirms the precautionary measure previously issued by federal judge John Coughenour in Seattle, who at the end of January had nationally blocked the enforcement of Trump's decree.
In his ruling, Coughenour argued that the measure was "openly unconstitutional."
Constitutional context
The order from Trump, signed on his second day in office, aimed to reinterpret the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Through his decree, Trump aimed to eliminate this right for children of individuals without legal immigration status, which was considered a direct violation of the constitutional citizenship clause.
The judges of the Ninth Circuit also cited the precedent of the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court had already affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship as a legitimate path to citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of the parents.
Arguments of the plaintiff states
The lawsuit that led to this latest decision was filed by four states with democratic governors: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
These states argued that implementing Trump's executive order would cause them "irreparable harm," both economically and administratively.
According to the ruling, "states will be denied federal reimbursements for the healthcare and social services provided to children who would no longer be considered citizens under the Executive Order, and who will incur substantial administrative costs associated with complying with such Order."
Furthermore, the court found that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the suing states, as they would be required to redesign their eligibility verification systems for social services.
Therefore, it was concluded that "a universal preliminary court order is necessary to provide states with complete relief."
Partial dissent and perspectives
Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Trump himself, issued a partially dissenting opinion.
In his analysis, he questioned the legal standing of the states to file the lawsuit, and considered it “premature to address the substance of the issue of citizenship or the scope of the injunction," as reported by CNN.
Nevertheless, the majority believed that the risk of harm to the constitutional structure and the rights of those born on U.S. territory was sufficient to justify judicial intervention.
This ruling, while final within the Ninth Circuit, may not mark the end of this legal battle: the Trump administration could still appeal to the en banc Ninth Circuit or take the case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Precedent and signs of the Supreme Court
The decision made this Wednesday comes in a context where the Supreme Court has issued contradictory signals.
At the end of June, the country's highest court limited the use of nationwide protective measures by federal judges.
However, he left the possibility open to apply these measures in the case of class actions or lawsuits initiated by state governments, like this one, as noted today by the agency EFE.
In fact, in addition to the Ninth Circuit ruling, a federal judge in New Hampshire had also previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking the nationwide enforcement of Trump's decree, in a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The decision of the Ninth Circuit represents a significant judicial setback for former President Trump and his attempt to redefine one of the cornerstones of American constitutional law.
It also marks a significant legal victory for the states that defended birthright citizenship as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
It will be the Supreme Court that has the final say on the constitutionality of Trump's attempt to rewrite the rules of citizenship by birth.
Filed under:
