| |
Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump E.O. 01/24 06:08
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's
executive order denying U.S. citizenship to the children of parents living in
the country illegally, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional" during the first
hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
SEATTLE (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President
Donald Trump's executive order denying U.S. citizenship to the children of
parents living in the country illegally, calling it "blatantly
unconstitutional" during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging
the order.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises citizenship to those born on
U.S. soil, a measure ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for former slaves
after the Civil War. But in an effort to curb unlawful immigration, Trump
issued the executive order just after being sworn in for his second term on
Monday.
The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents
are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any
document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such
children.
Trump's order drew immediate legal challenges across the country, with at
least five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants
rights groups. A lawsuit brought by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois
was the first to get a hearing.
"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," U.S. District Judge
John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly
unconstitutional order."
Thursday's decision prevents the Trump administration from taking steps to
implement the executive order for 14 days. In the meantime, the parties will
submit further arguments about the merits of Trump's order. Coughenour
scheduled a hearing on Feb. 6 to decide whether to block it long term as the
case proceeds.
Coughenour, 84, a Ronald Reagan appointee who was nominated to the federal
bench in 1981, grilled the DOJ attorney, Brett Shumate, asking whether Shumate
personally believed the order was constitutional.
"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state
unequivocally that this is a constitutional order," he added.
Shumate assured the judge he did -- "absolutely." He said the arguments the
Trump administration is making now have never previously been litigated, and
that there was no reason to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order when it
would expire before the executive order takes effect.
The Department of Justice later said in a statement that it will "vigorously
defend" the president's executive order, which it said "correctly interprets
the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
"We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to
the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation's laws enforced," the
department said.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship -- the
principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" -- is applied. Most are in the
Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War,
to ensure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans. It states:
"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."
Trump's order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not "subject to
the jurisdiction" of the United States, and therefore not entitled to
citizenship.
Arguing for the states on Thursday, Washington assistant attorney general
Lane Polozola called that "absurd," noting that neither those who have
immigrated illegally nor their children are immune from U.S. law.
"Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?" Polozola
asked. "Must they not follow the law while they are here?"
Polozola also said the restraining order was warranted because, among other
reasons, the executive order would immediately start requiring the states to
spend millions to revamp health care and benefits systems to reconsider an
applicant's citizenship status.
"The executive order will impact hundreds of thousands of citizens
nationwide who will lose their citizenship under this new rule," Polozola said.
"Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case."
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown told reporters afterward he was not
surprised that Coughenour had little patience with the Justice Department's
position, considering that the Citizenship Clause arose from one of the darkest
chapters of American law, the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision, which
held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not entitled to
citizenship.
"Babies are being born today, tomorrow, every day, all across this country,
and so we had to act now," Brown said. He added that it has been "the law of
the land for generations, that you are an American citizen if you are born on
American soil, period."
"Nothing that the president can do will change that," he said.
A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme
Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese
immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip
abroad, he had faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the
grounds that he wasn't a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly
applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say
it's less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the
country illegally.
Trump's order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections
to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for
instance, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation's first Chinese American
elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him. Later
Thursday, he said Coughenour made the right decision.
"There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that
Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now
on American families like my own," Tong said this week.
|
|
