A divided federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s executive order outlawing birthright citizenship cannot go into effect, upholding a lower court order blocking the directive.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon challenging Trump’s Jan. 20 birthright citizenship executive order would be likely to succeed in demonstrating that it is unconstitutional.
“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is Unconstitutional,” read the appeals court’s majority opinion. “We fully agree.”
Judges Michael Day Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould, both appointees of former President Bill Clinton, ruled in the majority, while Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, partially dissented.
Bumatay argued that the states didn’t have standing to sue the Trump administration over the order.
“Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief,” Bumatay wrote.
“Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds,” he added. “No matter how significant the question or how high the stakes of the case — at all times, we must adhere to the confines of ‘the judicial Power.’”
The Trump-appointed judge did not express an opinion on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship.
The judges in the majority found that the Democrat-led states were entitled to a nationwide injunction, because a narrower block would not provide them with “complete relief.”
The ruling keeps an injunction issued by Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour in place.
Federal judges in New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts have also issued sweeping universal injunctions blocking Trump’s order from taking effect.
The appeals court order comes after the Supreme Court ruled last month that nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges “likely exceed” the judicial branch’s constitutional authority.
The case centered on injunctions related to Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, and the high court curtailed the ability of federal judges to block presidential policies.
The justices, however, allowed some plaintiffs — including those in class-action lawsuits and states — to continue to seek universal injunctions if needed for complete relief.
Both avenues have been pursued by plaintiffs seeking to stop Trump’s directive.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, two courts — the Ninth Circuit and a New Hampshire district court — have issued temporary nationwide injunctions of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Seattle district court “did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief.”
Trump’s executive order seeks to only grant automatic citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.
The 14th Amendment stipulates that “[a]ll 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 maintains that birthright citizenship has been abused and ushered in an era of “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals have babies in the US to give their children citizenship.
The president and his allies have also argued that the Civil War-era amendment was originally aimed at the children of freed slaves, and has since been improperly interpreted as applying to the children of migrants.
The White House did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.
