In a ruling that could propel the issue to the Supreme Court, an appeals court will not allow the Donald Trump administration to end birthright citizenship for certain children of immigrants.
It was the first time an appellate court had weighed in on Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
President Trump’s order, signed on his first day back in the White House on January 20, directed United States (US) agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in America after Wednesday, February 19, if neither their mother nor father was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Trump’s US Justice Department had asked the 9th Circuit to, by Thursday, February 20, largely stay a ruling by Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour declaring the policy unconstitutional, saying he went too far by issuing a nationwide injunction at the behest of four Democratic-led states.
But, as reported by the CNN, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, February 19, declined an emergency Justice Department request that it lift the hold a Seattle judge had placed blocking implementation of President Trump’s executive order, after concluding the order ran afoul of the constitution.
The three judges in the San Francisco-based appeals court, comprising appointees of Presidents Trump, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, found the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had failed to make a “strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of this appeal.”
One member of the panel, Trump-appointed Judge Danielle Forrest, expanded on her reasoning in a concurring opinion, taking issue with the Justice Department’s characterisation of an emergency.
She wrote:
“It is routine for both executive and legislative policies to be challenged in court, particularly where a new policy is a significant shift from prior understanding and practice. And just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make.
“A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily.”
The case has been set down for further review, with arguments due to be heard in June.
