Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (4 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[wardorican]

What do you think Chuck?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How is this even a thing? Has the 14th Amendment been repealed or has it just been regulated to a suggestion just like the 4th Amendment?

 

[Sendai]

So basically the Supreme Court is going to answer the question of does a District Court have the power to issues decisions that have nationwide application.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they throw in an addendum preserving birthright precedent as well.

 

[MT15]

So basically the Supreme Court is going to answer the question of does a District Court have the power to issues decisions that have nationwide application.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they throw in an addendum preserving birthright precedent as well.

This would surprise me - the addendum part - they have increasingly been making narrower and narrower rulings and not straying from the precise question before them. Especially if it would be unpopular with the WH.

If they do add such an addendum, it would surprise me if it was unanimous. I think at least 2 justices are politically compromised and will do whatever Trump wants.

 

[superchuck500]

This would surprise me - the addendum part - they have increasingly been making narrower and narrower rulings and not straying from the precise question before them. Especially if it would be unpopular with the WH.

If they do add such an addendum, it would surprise me if it was unanimous. I think at least 2 justices are politically compromised and will do whatever Trump wants.

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

 

[MT15]

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

My guess is that they don’t mention it. My further guess is that they wouldn’t be unanimous if they did mention it.

 

[Sendai]

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

I do expect that federal district court judges are about to be reminded of their appointment to a specific geographic area of responsibility. They aren’t national

 

[RobF]

My guess is that they don’t mention it. My further guess is that they wouldn’t be unanimous if they did mention it.

I think they've got a bit of a headache. They'd probably, generally, be minded to preserve birthright citizenship, but to rule against non-party injunctions... but this is probably a great example of a case where wider injunctions make sense.

Because, especially if they were inclined to think it's unconstitutional, with an injunction limited to the parties, there would be a clear risk - certainty even - of constitutional rights being denied to the non parties in the interim, and it'd clearly be unrealistic to expect everyone potentially affected to become a party.

 

[MT15]

I think they've got a bit of a headache. They'd probably, generally, be minded to preserve birthright citizenship, but to rule against non-party injunctions... but this is probably a great example of a case where wider injunctions make sense.

Because, especially if they were inclined to think it's unconstitutional, with an injunction limited to the parties, there would be a clear risk - certainty even - of constitutional rights being denied to the non parties in the interim, and it'd clearly be unrealistic to expect everyone potentially affected to become a party.

all they have to do is look at what this admin is doing with the illegal flights to El Salvador to know that if there isn’t a complete and total rejection of this executive order the admin will push it out nationwide immediately.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I do expect that federal district court judges are about to be reminded of their appointment to a specific geographic area of responsibility. They aren’t national

So their rulings are only admissible in their districts?

Bruh.

 

[Sendai]

So their rulings are only admissible in their districts?

Bruh.

I didn’t say that. District court judges are free to use other District court judges opinions.

They don’t have a binding national jurisdiction.

It’s not unusual for district courts to have competing and opposing opinions. No district court judge is bound by another district court judges opinion.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I didn’t say that. District court judges are free to use other District court judges opinions.

They don’t have a binding national jurisdiction.

It’s not unusual for district courts to have competing and opposing opinions. No district court judge is bound by another district court judges opinion.

That's is not how the LAW works. If there's an opposition to ANY Fed decision, that decision is then appealed and any further opposition his heard by SCOTUS.

 

[MT15]

This sort of chicanery by mainstream media is what makes me think that there is a chance that this particular Supreme Court will bend to Trump’s desire to end birthright citizenship.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A series of federal court rulings across the country struck down Donald Trump’s attempt to strip citizenship from newborn Americansborn to certain immigrant parents. But the government argues those decisions should be limited to the individual states — and pregnant mothers — who sued him and won.

During oral arguments on the issue at the Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the administration’s position a “catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime,” where court orders would protect only the individuals in a case, not the millions of Americans who could be impacted.

Trump’s position argues that everyone would need a lawyer “to stop the government from violating anyone’s rights,” she said. “I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”

Trump is using challenges against his birthright citizenship executive order to try to make a case against the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have thwarted a blitz of White House directives that judges across the ideological spectrum found unconstitutional.

If the high court agreed to limit the scope of injunctions against the president’s birthright citizenship order, it would cause an unworkable patchwork of constitutional rights, where children could be citizens in one state and not in another, according to legal scholars and immigrants’ advocates……….

Trump of ‘catch me if you can regime’ in Supreme Court birthright citizenship hearing

Liberal justices shot back at Trump’s ‘unlawful’ attempts to rewrite the 14th Amendment

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

Imagine you are pregnant. You live in Texas and will be giving birth this summer. Meanwhile, your friend is also pregnant and is scheduled to have her baby the very same day as you—except she lives in Maryland.

Both of you are either undocumented or on a temporary visa, but because you live in Texas your newborn may be ineligible to receive U.S. citizenship, rendering them stateless. Over in Maryland, your friend’s baby will become a U.S. citizen, benefiting from social services only offered to people with a Social Security number.

You’re probably wondering: How is that fair?

It’s a scenario that the Supreme Court is grappling with as it deliberates on Trump v. CASA, a case that will determine the lawfulness of the three nationwide injunctions currently preventing President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect.

Last week, the federal government argued it wants to limit those injunctions to only the plaintiffs suing—22 states and Washington, D.C., two immigrant rights groups, and four pregnant women—because it believes lower courts should not have universal authority to dictate the executive branch’s policy.

If the justices rule in favor of Trump, it could create a world in which babies born to undocumented immigrants (and those here on temporary visas) in nearly half of U.S. states would not receive birthright citizenship.

That’s despite many of the justices suggesting that Trump’s executive order, on its merits, is most likely unconstitutional.

But that’s not the issue they’ve tasked themselves with solving for now; instead, they accepted the Trump administration’s request to exclusively consider the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against the policy.

I talked to Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, to understand how the president’s executive order would work in practice, if the justices rule that the current nationwide injunctions cannot stand and must be limited to the plaintiffs.

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Shirin Ali: If the Trump administration gets its way and we end up in a scenario where the plaintiffs, 22 states and Washington, D.C., get to continue honoring birthright citizenship, while the rest of the states don’t, couldn’t people just travel to the plaintiff states as a workaround?

Elora Mukherjee: The administration has purposely avoided arguing to the Supreme Court that its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct, because it knows it would lose that question on the merits. But a ruling from the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunction can’t stand would nevertheless have dramatic and far-reaching consequences.

The executive order ending birthright citizenship could be enforced in some states, while remaining states could block it, and that would create a fragmented and chaotic citizenship across the country.

And as you’re suggesting, babies born on the same day could be citizens in one state, but stateless in the other. That would destabilize families, overwhelm local governments, and invite a flood of costly legal battles. In terms of whether a pregnant person could cross state lines before giving birth, maybe.

They could, but that would privilege pregnant people who have access to resources, information about the legal system, a place to stay once they cross state lines so that they can give birth safely, and medical care once they do so. For many people with limited resources, it won’t be possible to cross state lines.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum was explaining to the court that every year, about 6,000 babies cross state lines and come into the state of New Jersey, and the state needs to do citizenship verification for all of those babies. Justice Sotomayor chimed in and noted it’s not just the state of New Jersey; it would be the same in the 22 states collectively that are participating in this litigation and challenging the executive order.

Feigenbaum agreed and explained that a lack of nationwide injunctive relief in citizenship would undermine the ability of the plaintiff states to process benefits for eligible children and families. The federal government requires Social Security numbers to be provided for the administration of benefits. Babies born outside of the plaintiff states might arrive in a plaintiff state without a Social Security number, and the burden would be on the plaintiff state to figure out how to administer benefits.

Plaintiff states would also incur substantially more costs to get them enrolled, as Feigenbaum argued. As a nation, we haven’t had citizenship turn on crossing states since the Civil War, and it’s not clear how this would work on the ground at all.

Knowing that the Trump administration is in the midst of an aggressive immigration crackdown, is it possible that a baby born in a plaintiff state who then travels to a non-plaintiff state could end up being subject to arrest, detention, and even deportation?

It is certainly conceivable that the executive branch, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and others at the highest echelons of our executive branch, once a baby crosses state lines, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. We can imagine that a baby is born in Maryland, one of the plaintiff states that’s covered by an injunction right now, and they move to Texas. They may be subject to immigration enforcement actions, correctly or incorrectly, maybe due to racial profiling or something else. Once that baby is arrested on the way to being deported from the United States, how will that baby explain that they were actually granted U.S. citizenship in Maryland?

What we’ve seen is an executive branch that is intent on rapidly deporting people from the United States without offering them any meaningful due process. We’ve already had many hundreds of people wrongly deported from the United States since Jan. 20, and U.S. citizens are regularly deported wrongly from the United States already. If the executive order is not enjoined nationwide, the risk of error dramatically multiplies..................

What It Would Look Like If the Trump Administration Got Its Way in the Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court could create a patchwork of citizenship rules that echoes a dark time in the nation's history.

slate.com

 

[MT15]

Imagine you are pregnant. You live in Texas and will be giving birth this summer. Meanwhile, your friend is also pregnant and is scheduled to have her baby the very same day as you—except she lives in Maryland.

Both of you are either undocumented or on a temporary visa, but because you live in Texas your newborn may be ineligible to receive U.S. citizenship, rendering them stateless. Over in Maryland, your friend’s baby will become a U.S. citizen, benefiting from social services only offered to people with a Social Security number.

You’re probably wondering: How is that fair?

It’s a scenario that the Supreme Court is grappling with as it deliberates on Trump v. CASA, a case that will determine the lawfulness of the three nationwide injunctions currently preventing President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect.

Last week, the federal government argued it wants to limit those injunctions to only the plaintiffs suing—22 states and Washington, D.C., two immigrant rights groups, and four pregnant women—because it believes lower courts should not have universal authority to dictate the executive branch’s policy.

If the justices rule in favor of Trump, it could create a world in which babies born to undocumented immigrants (and those here on temporary visas) in nearly half of U.S. states would not receive birthright citizenship.

That’s despite many of the justices suggesting that Trump’s executive order, on its merits, is most likely unconstitutional.

But that’s not the issue they’ve tasked themselves with solving for now; instead, they accepted the Trump administration’s request to exclusively consider the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against the policy.

I talked to Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, to understand how the president’s executive order would work in practice, if the justices rule that the current nationwide injunctions cannot stand and must be limited to the plaintiffs.

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Shirin Ali: If the Trump administration gets its way and we end up in a scenario where the plaintiffs, 22 states and Washington, D.C., get to continue honoring birthright citizenship, while the rest of the states don’t, couldn’t people just travel to the plaintiff states as a workaround?

Elora Mukherjee: The administration has purposely avoided arguing to the Supreme Court that its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct, because it knows it would lose that question on the merits. But a ruling from the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunction can’t stand would nevertheless have dramatic and far-reaching consequences.

The executive order ending birthright citizenship could be enforced in some states, while remaining states could block it, and that would create a fragmented and chaotic citizenship across the country.

And as you’re suggesting, babies born on the same day could be citizens in one state, but stateless in the other. That would destabilize families, overwhelm local governments, and invite a flood of costly legal battles. In terms of whether a pregnant person could cross state lines before giving birth, maybe.

They could, but that would privilege pregnant people who have access to resources, information about the legal system, a place to stay once they cross state lines so that they can give birth safely, and medical care once they do so. For many people with limited resources, it won’t be possible to cross state lines.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum was explaining to the court that every year, about 6,000 babies cross state lines and come into the state of New Jersey, and the state needs to do citizenship verification for all of those babies. Justice Sotomayor chimed in and noted it’s not just the state of New Jersey; it would be the same in the 22 states collectively that are participating in this litigation and challenging the executive order.

Feigenbaum agreed and explained that a lack of nationwide injunctive relief in citizenship would undermine the ability of the plaintiff states to process benefits for eligible children and families. The federal government requires Social Security numbers to be provided for the administration of benefits. Babies born outside of the plaintiff states might arrive in a plaintiff state without a Social Security number, and the burden would be on the plaintiff state to figure out how to administer benefits.

Plaintiff states would also incur substantially more costs to get them enrolled, as Feigenbaum argued. As a nation, we haven’t had citizenship turn on crossing states since the Civil War, and it’s not clear how this would work on the ground at all.

Knowing that the Trump administration is in the midst of an aggressive immigration crackdown, is it possible that a baby born in a plaintiff state who then travels to a non-plaintiff state could end up being subject to arrest, detention, and even deportation?

It is certainly conceivable that the executive branch, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and others at the highest echelons of our executive branch, once a baby crosses state lines, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. We can imagine that a baby is born in Maryland, one of the plaintiff states that’s covered by an injunction right now, and they move to Texas. They may be subject to immigration enforcement actions, correctly or incorrectly, maybe due to racial profiling or something else. Once that baby is arrested on the way to being deported from the United States, how will that baby explain that they were actually granted U.S. citizenship in Maryland?

What we’ve seen is an executive branch that is intent on rapidly deporting people from the United States without offering them any meaningful due process. We’ve already had many hundreds of people wrongly deported from the United States since Jan. 20, and U.S. citizens are regularly deported wrongly from the United States already. If the executive order is not enjoined nationwide, the risk of error dramatically multiplies..................

What It Would Look Like If the Trump Administration Got Its Way in the Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court could create a patchwork of citizenship rules that echoes a dark time in the nation's history.

slate.com

And the corrupt members of this Supreme Court would enable that ruling. They know what they’re doing. If they do allow that to happen, I don’t know how anyone could argue that they’re deciding correctly. They know what this administration is doing illegally and they will be enabling it.

 

[Huntn]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

The Head ********* is ruling by decree, as emperor, as if EOs “trump” Federal Law. He can act like an evil moron because control of Congress is held by co-conspirators in the overthrow of the Federal Gov, along with his SCOTUS appointed minions. Questions?

 

[Huntn]

Imagine you are pregnant. You live in Texas and will be giving birth this summer. Meanwhile, your friend is also pregnant and is scheduled to have her baby the very same day as you—except she lives in Maryland.

Both of you are either undocumented or on a temporary visa, but because you live in Texas your newborn may be ineligible to receive U.S. citizenship, rendering them stateless. Over in Maryland, your friend’s baby will become a U.S. citizen, benefiting from social services only offered to people with a Social Security number.

You’re probably wondering: How is that fair?

It’s a scenario that the Supreme Court is grappling with as it deliberates on Trump v. CASA, a case that will determine the lawfulness of the three nationwide injunctions currently preventing President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect.

Last week, the federal government argued it wants to limit those injunctions to only the plaintiffs suing—22 states and Washington, D.C., two immigrant rights groups, and four pregnant women—because it believes lower courts should not have universal authority to dictate the executive branch’s policy.

If the justices rule in favor of Trump, it could create a world in which babies born to undocumented immigrants (and those here on temporary visas) in nearly half of U.S. states would not receive birthright citizenship.

That’s despite many of the justices suggesting that Trump’s executive order, on its merits, is most likely unconstitutional.

But that’s not the issue they’ve tasked themselves with solving for now; instead, they accepted the Trump administration’s request to exclusively consider the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against the policy.

I talked to Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, to understand how the president’s executive order would work in practice, if the justices rule that the current nationwide injunctions cannot stand and must be limited to the plaintiffs.

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Shirin Ali: If the Trump administration gets its way and we end up in a scenario where the plaintiffs, 22 states and Washington, D.C., get to continue honoring birthright citizenship, while the rest of the states don’t, couldn’t people just travel to the plaintiff states as a workaround?

Elora Mukherjee: The administration has purposely avoided arguing to the Supreme Court that its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct, because it knows it would lose that question on the merits. But a ruling from the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunction can’t stand would nevertheless have dramatic and far-reaching consequences.

The executive order ending birthright citizenship could be enforced in some states, while remaining states could block it, and that would create a fragmented and chaotic citizenship across the country.

And as you’re suggesting, babies born on the same day could be citizens in one state, but stateless in the other. That would destabilize families, overwhelm local governments, and invite a flood of costly legal battles. In terms of whether a pregnant person could cross state lines before giving birth, maybe.

They could, but that would privilege pregnant people who have access to resources, information about the legal system, a place to stay once they cross state lines so that they can give birth safely, and medical care once they do so. For many people with limited resources, it won’t be possible to cross state lines.

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum was explaining to the court that every year, about 6,000 babies cross state lines and come into the state of New Jersey, and the state needs to do citizenship verification for all of those babies. Justice Sotomayor chimed in and noted it’s not just the state of New Jersey; it would be the same in the 22 states collectively that are participating in this litigation and challenging the executive order.

Feigenbaum agreed and explained that a lack of nationwide injunctive relief in citizenship would undermine the ability of the plaintiff states to process benefits for eligible children and families. The federal government requires Social Security numbers to be provided for the administration of benefits. Babies born outside of the plaintiff states might arrive in a plaintiff state without a Social Security number, and the burden would be on the plaintiff state to figure out how to administer benefits.

Plaintiff states would also incur substantially more costs to get them enrolled, as Feigenbaum argued. As a nation, we haven’t had citizenship turn on crossing states since the Civil War, and it’s not clear how this would work on the ground at all.

Knowing that the Trump administration is in the midst of an aggressive immigration crackdown, is it possible that a baby born in a plaintiff state who then travels to a non-plaintiff state could end up being subject to arrest, detention, and even deportation?

It is certainly conceivable that the executive branch, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and others at the highest echelons of our executive branch, once a baby crosses state lines, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. We can imagine that a baby is born in Maryland, one of the plaintiff states that’s covered by an injunction right now, and they move to Texas. They may be subject to immigration enforcement actions, correctly or incorrectly, maybe due to racial profiling or something else. Once that baby is arrested on the way to being deported from the United States, how will that baby explain that they were actually granted U.S. citizenship in Maryland?

What we’ve seen is an executive branch that is intent on rapidly deporting people from the United States without offering them any meaningful due process. We’ve already had many hundreds of people wrongly deported from the United States since Jan. 20, and U.S. citizens are regularly deported wrongly from the United States already. If the executive order is not enjoined nationwide, the risk of error dramatically multiplies..................

What It Would Look Like If the Trump Administration Got Its Way in the Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court could create a patchwork of citizenship rules that echoes a dark time in the nation's history.

slate.com

Without Due Process we live in a police state, the victims, and future victims will be whichever group “he” decides is a threat. The next move will be to strip citizens of their citizenship if they verbally oppose Der Fuhrer. And Mango has already tried to use wartime provisions to boost his control such as illegal deporting residents outside the court system. He’ll just say it’s “an emergency” declare Marshall Law and “being a dictator for a day” will become the joke of the century.