Judge issues nationwide injunction on Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship
Trump's directive, which is scheduled to go into effect in two weeks, had previously been put on hold temporarily.
TroibNews 
A second federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, asserting that the action is likely unconstitutional.
During a one-hour argument session on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman determined that a group of five pregnant immigrants and two immigrant rights organizations had "easily" fulfilled the requirements to suspend Trump's order while its legality is examined.
“The executive order conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth,” remarked Boardman, a Biden appointee. The judge indicated that her injunction would take effect nationwide.
Originally scheduled to go into effect in two weeks, Trump's order was already temporarily halted by a federal judge in Seattle.
“The United States Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected the president’s interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. In fact, no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first,” the judge stated during Thursday’s hearing in Greenbelt, which is located just outside Washington.
Signed amid a series of directives on the first day of his second term, Trump’s order directed federal agencies to cease issuing citizenship documents and to deny recognition of U.S. citizenship for babies born to foreigners residing in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas.
The order was set to take effect on February 19, impacting only children born after that date. Nonetheless, it had already been temporarily stopped by a Seattle federal judge, who is scheduled to address a longer-term injunction at a hearing on Thursday.
In the Wednesday arguments, Boardman scrutinized both a lawyer contesting Trump’s order and an attorney who was defending it, focusing on relevant legal precedents, the order’s scope, and its potential effects.
Joseph Mead, representing the immigrant advocacy groups, contended that Trump’s order contradicted a century-old Supreme Court precedent and was creating significant distress for families expecting to give birth soon.
“It infringes upon the most fundamental constitutional right,” asserted Mead, an attorney with Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. “It is causing real-world confusion, fear, real-world harm for countless people today … The executive order’s departure from this well-settled history should be enjoined.”
Conversely, Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton argued that officials in the executive branch have misinterpreted the citizenship guarantee provided by the 14th Amendment for over a century.
“The framers of that act did not intend to and did not in fact create a loophole to be exploited by temporary visitors to the country and by illegal aliens,” Hamilton claimed.
Boardman referred to the Trump administration’s interpretation of the pivotal Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark v. U.S., from 1898—wherein it was decided that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents was entitled to U.S. citizenship—as “novel.”
“What executive other than President Trump has taken this position?” she inquired.
While Hamilton cited a 1910 Justice Department report and a State Department action from 1885, the judge promptly pointed out that the latter occurred before the Supreme Court seemingly settled the issue just over a decade later.
Boardman questioned the authority of Trump or any president to determine U.S. citizenship status, asking the DOJ attorney what harm would come from maintaining existing citizenship policies during the litigation of Trump's proposed changes.
“What’s the harm if we push the pause button, keep the status quo as it’s been for 250 years and let this question be decided on the merits?” the judge asked.
In response, Hamilton stated, “The earlier executive branch practice can be aligned with the citizenship clause, the better.”
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
During a one-hour argument session on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Boardman determined that a group of five pregnant immigrants and two immigrant rights organizations had "easily" fulfilled the requirements to suspend Trump's order while its legality is examined.
“The executive order conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth,” remarked Boardman, a Biden appointee. The judge indicated that her injunction would take effect nationwide.
Originally scheduled to go into effect in two weeks, Trump's order was already temporarily halted by a federal judge in Seattle.
“The United States Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected the president’s interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. In fact, no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first,” the judge stated during Thursday’s hearing in Greenbelt, which is located just outside Washington.
Signed amid a series of directives on the first day of his second term, Trump’s order directed federal agencies to cease issuing citizenship documents and to deny recognition of U.S. citizenship for babies born to foreigners residing in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas.
The order was set to take effect on February 19, impacting only children born after that date. Nonetheless, it had already been temporarily stopped by a Seattle federal judge, who is scheduled to address a longer-term injunction at a hearing on Thursday.
In the Wednesday arguments, Boardman scrutinized both a lawyer contesting Trump’s order and an attorney who was defending it, focusing on relevant legal precedents, the order’s scope, and its potential effects.
Joseph Mead, representing the immigrant advocacy groups, contended that Trump’s order contradicted a century-old Supreme Court precedent and was creating significant distress for families expecting to give birth soon.
“It infringes upon the most fundamental constitutional right,” asserted Mead, an attorney with Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. “It is causing real-world confusion, fear, real-world harm for countless people today … The executive order’s departure from this well-settled history should be enjoined.”
Conversely, Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton argued that officials in the executive branch have misinterpreted the citizenship guarantee provided by the 14th Amendment for over a century.
“The framers of that act did not intend to and did not in fact create a loophole to be exploited by temporary visitors to the country and by illegal aliens,” Hamilton claimed.
Boardman referred to the Trump administration’s interpretation of the pivotal Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark v. U.S., from 1898—wherein it was decided that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents was entitled to U.S. citizenship—as “novel.”
“What executive other than President Trump has taken this position?” she inquired.
While Hamilton cited a 1910 Justice Department report and a State Department action from 1885, the judge promptly pointed out that the latter occurred before the Supreme Court seemingly settled the issue just over a decade later.
Boardman questioned the authority of Trump or any president to determine U.S. citizenship status, asking the DOJ attorney what harm would come from maintaining existing citizenship policies during the litigation of Trump's proposed changes.
“What’s the harm if we push the pause button, keep the status quo as it’s been for 250 years and let this question be decided on the merits?” the judge asked.
In response, Hamilton stated, “The earlier executive branch practice can be aligned with the citizenship clause, the better.”
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
