The federal court has denied a request by lawyers for former president Donald Trump that a nationwide order blocking the executive order to end birthright citizenship be lifted. It was the intention of this executive order to deny citizenship automatically to any child born to non-citizens or illegal residents in America.
On February 11, the motion was filed, asking that the court restrict the scope of the injunction to only the plaintiffs individually and the members of organizations who are involved in the case.
Deborah L. Boardman of District Court denied this motion. Boardman stated that if the Court limited the injunction only to plaintiffs, and members of their plaintiff organizations then the citizenship of a child during the pendency period of this case depends on either their parent’s decision to sue or whether they are in either one of two voluntary private organizations. This would be absurd.”
Why it Matters
The first nationwide injunction was issued by Judge Boardman on February 5th. The defendants have appealed this ruling.
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are CASA, a Latino immigrant and advocacy group; the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and five women who are pregnant.
Trump’s Executive Order has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. The main argument is that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Citizenship Clause, to the U.S. Constitution.
The Key Takeaways
In her decision, Judge Boardman stressed the importance of “uniform” and “consistent” application of the citizenship laws throughout the nation, saying that it could only be accomplished through a national injunction.
It was also pointed out that ASAP members are located in all fifty states, as well as U.S. Territories. This includes many pregnant women, who will be affected directly by this executive order.
Boardman explained: “The fact the people in the same situation who aren’t members of ASAP enjoy nationwide injunctive aid is not a reason to limit the scope,”
The defendants also asked the judge to reject their request that they proceed to implement the order by formulating policy and guidelines.
Boardman stated that plaintiffs have demonstrated “a strong likelihood of success” with their claims that the executive orders violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Boardman said, “Surely the government does not have a valid interest to take internal steps in forming policies and guidelines on an Executive Order that is unconstitutional.”
Birthright Citizenship Explained
Birthright citizenship is also called jus solis. It is the idea that any person who is born within the borders of a particular country is entitled to citizenship. This principle was ratified by the United States in 1868, and is codified in the Fourteenth Amendment. Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment says that any person born in America or who has naturalized there and is under its jurisdiction can be a citizen.
Details about Trump’s Executive Order
The former president Trump issued an executive order on January 20 to stop automatic citizenship being granted to children of non-citizens born in the United States. It would apply regardless of the legal status of the parents in the U.S.
Native American Citizenship: Potential Impact
While the executive order didn’t specifically mention Native Americans, the Department of Justice referenced the 1884 Supreme Court case *Elk v. Wilkins* in a legal filing related to the case. It raised questions about the possible implications of this for Native American citizens.
In *Elk v. Wilkins*, the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American was not automatically entitled to citizenship because their allegiance was primarily to their tribe, not the United States.
The Department of Justice stated that the United States has a weaker connection to the children of temporary foreigners and illegal aliens than it does with Indian tribal members.
Statements from Key Figures
In her ruling, Judge Boardman denied the motion of defendants: “The defendants failed to make a compelling case for their contention that the Court committed an error in granting the nationwide injunction which enjoins both the enforcement of and implementation the Executive Order.”
The memorandum of the Acting Assistant Attorney-General Brett A. Schumate In the same way, “the equities weigh in favour of staying an injunction which intrudes on internal executive affairs and prohibits defendants from taking even preparatory measures to implement” [executive order] In the event it eventually takes effect, this protection extends to third parties who do not have a demonstrated likelihood of irreparable damage or entitlement to injunctive remedies.”
What’s Next?
While the defendants wait for a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit on their appeal, the nationwide injunction will remain in effect.