BOSTON (AP) — Over a span of a month this summer, four separate federal courts rejected President Donald Trump’s executive order ending automatic citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily.
On Friday, one more court weighed in, and the result was no different. A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said in a unanimous decision that the Republican president cannot enforce the order. The court joined the four others that earlier had issued or upheld decisions blocking it nationwide.
The U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain to have the final word on birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has already asked the high court to take up the issue.
Federal judges have made clear how much his order conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, to say nothing of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not bound by what those lower court judges have said or even its own past rulings. Nonetheless, those losses could mean an uphill fight for his administration even in front of the justices, who have so far sided with the president on many legal challenges to his effort to remake the government.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established the right to citizenship at birth and was designed to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. Its citizenship clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Administration lawyers argue that the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that citizenship is not automatically conferred to children based solely on their birth in the U.S., and that children of individuals in the U.S. illegally or temporarily cannot claim this right. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated that the 1st Circuit was misinterpreting the amendment, although legal scholars assert the administration’s interpretation conflicts with the amendment’s history.
Legal precedence includes the 1898 landmark decision where the Supreme Court ruled that the son of Chinese immigrants, born in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Though the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the citizenship clause’s application to children of undocumented immigrants, its past interpretations suggest no differentiation should exist between them and children of legally present foreigners.
In June, a challenge to the birthright order reached the Supreme Court, but the justices did not decide its constitutionality, instead issuing a ruling limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which was a win for the administration.
Lower court decisions have consistently blocked Trump’s birthright order, with a federal judge in New Hampshire being the starting point of this rejection. The justices did not rule out nationwide effects in class-action lawsuits in their June ruling. The 1st Circuit stated its decision on the matter was straightforward, prompting Chief Judge David Barron to emphasize the rarity of such executive efforts to deny citizenship rights.
In her statement, Jackson expressed confidence in the administration’s position and looked forward to being vindicated by the Supreme Court. To enforce the order, officials would need to confirm a parent’s citizenship or immigration status before issuing Social Security numbers or approving passport applications, according to recent administration guidance.
On Friday, one more court weighed in, and the result was no different. A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said in a unanimous decision that the Republican president cannot enforce the order. The court joined the four others that earlier had issued or upheld decisions blocking it nationwide.
The U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain to have the final word on birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has already asked the high court to take up the issue.
Federal judges have made clear how much his order conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, to say nothing of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not bound by what those lower court judges have said or even its own past rulings. Nonetheless, those losses could mean an uphill fight for his administration even in front of the justices, who have so far sided with the president on many legal challenges to his effort to remake the government.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established the right to citizenship at birth and was designed to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. Its citizenship clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Administration lawyers argue that the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that citizenship is not automatically conferred to children based solely on their birth in the U.S., and that children of individuals in the U.S. illegally or temporarily cannot claim this right. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated that the 1st Circuit was misinterpreting the amendment, although legal scholars assert the administration’s interpretation conflicts with the amendment’s history.
Legal precedence includes the 1898 landmark decision where the Supreme Court ruled that the son of Chinese immigrants, born in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Though the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the citizenship clause’s application to children of undocumented immigrants, its past interpretations suggest no differentiation should exist between them and children of legally present foreigners.
In June, a challenge to the birthright order reached the Supreme Court, but the justices did not decide its constitutionality, instead issuing a ruling limiting lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which was a win for the administration.
Lower court decisions have consistently blocked Trump’s birthright order, with a federal judge in New Hampshire being the starting point of this rejection. The justices did not rule out nationwide effects in class-action lawsuits in their June ruling. The 1st Circuit stated its decision on the matter was straightforward, prompting Chief Judge David Barron to emphasize the rarity of such executive efforts to deny citizenship rights.
In her statement, Jackson expressed confidence in the administration’s position and looked forward to being vindicated by the Supreme Court. To enforce the order, officials would need to confirm a parent’s citizenship or immigration status before issuing Social Security numbers or approving passport applications, according to recent administration guidance.
