Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (1 Viewer)

[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/

 

[Sendai]

As already said, precedent here is that lower courts have been making nationwide rulings for decades - until now.

This is simply a thinly disguised way to give cover for more of Project 2025 to go forward. If something is unconstitutional in one district, it is unconstitutional in the entire country.

Each district isn’t entitled to their own version of constitutionality.

It’s a ridiculous argument put forth by partisans on an activist court.

There was no Supreme Court precedent on nationwide rulings, until today.

 

[Sendai]

As already said, precedent here is that lower courts have been making nationwide rulings for decades - until now.

This is simply a thinly disguised way to give cover for more of Project 2025 to go forward. If something is unconstitutional in one district, it is unconstitutional in the entire country.

Each district isn’t entitled to their own version of constitutionality.

It’s a ridiculous argument put forth by partisans on an activist court.

It’s only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court agrees.

 

[Sendai]

More lies by way of half truths. I'm about to be 60. My entire life, federal courts have issued nationwide injunctions against presidents of both parties. Not once has either president ever argued that those courts didn't have the constitutional or congressional authority to do that.

The precedent for at least 50 years has been that federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions, anyone saying otherwise is not telling the truth and they know they are not telling the truth.

“Past lower court universal injunctions have been a subject of legal debate and scrutiny, particularly regarding their scope and impact on federal policy implementation. These injunctions, issued by lower federal courts, prevent the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, not just the specific parties in the case.While historically less common, their use has increased in recent years, leading to legal challenges and debate about their legitimacy.

Here's a breakdown of the key aspects:
What is a universal injunction?

• A universal injunction is a court order that applies nationwide, preventing the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the specific case.
• This differs from traditional injunctions, which typically only affect the parties directly involved in the lawsuit.
  

Historical Context:

• Historically, universal injunctions were rare and not a widely used remedy.
• Some legal scholars argue that they are a relatively recent innovation, particularly in the context of challenging executive orders and federal policies.
• The Supreme Court has acknowledged a rise in their use, particularly during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. ”

Note the term “rare and not a widely used remedy “

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

“Past lower court universal injunctions have been a subject of legal debate and scrutiny, particularly regarding their scope and impact on federal policy implementation...

More partial truths meant to deceive.

Your post actually proves that the true precedent is that courts have been considered to have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions and have been doing so for a long time. Everything in the legal world is the subject of legal debate and scrutiny, because there isn't a single legal topic that everyone agrees on. All you've done is shown that there has been debate. That doesn't mean it hasn't been precedent.

Your quote even says that it has been challenged, but the Supreme Court has never ruled against it until now. You keep proving the opposite of what you desperately try to prove.

Also, everyone pay attention to the fact that Sendai didn't provide a citation for his cherry picked quote. I firmly believe that's because he doesn't want anyone to know everything the source says, because it proves what he's saying isn't accurate. They've done that more than once lately. If they stay on pattern, then they'll post a link that they say is where that quote came from with another quote, but they won't respond to anything anyone has said to them, other than to say "nuh-uh."

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

You’re certainly welcome to try and show that Congress granted lower district courts power over the entire nation but good luck with that.

ICYMI, Federal Courts are governed by Article III of the US Constitution. Its Judges are appointed by the President just as they are in the Supreme Court. They are the Judicial Branch of Government which is an equal power to the Legislative and Executive Branches.

 

[coldseat]

And the Supreme Court got tired of lower courts doing that. You’re certainly welcome to try and show that Congress granted lower district courts power over the entire nation but good luck with that. Even Justice Kagan had expressed a disapproval in the past.

The problem here isn't the judicial system and judges at large. The problem is the Trump administration and right wing judges. The Trump administration wants to enforce clearly unconstitutional mandates and not have courts rule on them. And right wing judges want to enforce their "conservative" social restrictions through judicial fiat regardless of facts.

You eliminate those two things and you eliminate the problem. The SC just made everything worse, which was the intended outcome. I hate that everything that "conservatives" do is so destructive and corrosive. It's like that's the only bone in their body.

 

[J-DONK]

The problem here isn't the judicial system and judges at large. The problem is the Trump administration and right wing judges. The Trump administration wants to enforce clearly unconstitutional mandates and not have courts rule on them. And right wing judges want to enforce their "conservative" social restrictions through judicial fiat regardless of facts.

You eliminate those two things and you eliminate the problem. The SC just made everything worse, which was the intended outcome. I hate that everything that "conservatives" do is so destructive and corrosive. It's like that's the only bone in their body.

The thing Sendai is not talking about: Why make a ruling on nationwide injuctions, and not the underlying case of banning birthright citizenship? Why isn't the Trump admin taking the case to the SC?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The thing Sendai is not talking about: Why make a ruling on nationwide injuctions, and not the underlying case of banning birthright citizenship? Why isn't the Trump admin taking the case to the SC?

Their ultimate goal is buy time by filling up multiple Federal courts with the hopes that they will run opponents out of money to fight. Appellate Courts have already upheld the District Courts' rulings, but if the their rulings means nothing to the hundreds of thousands of potential victims of the EO, there's no relief in sight. The Plaintiffs have no case to bring to the SC because the Districts ruled in their favor, and the US have no incentive to bring up the case to SCOTUS because until more Districts rule against them, they can just have chaos.

 

[SamAndreas]

I'll leave this here:

 

[MT15]

It’s only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court agrees.

This is complete bs. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth about this issue.

 

[MT15]

I don’t recall supporting that. I did make statement that the Congress lacks the authority to outlaw abortions. That it belongs to the states.

Which is a horrible, reductive and even abusive ruling. How can bodily autonomy depend on where you live? It doesn’t if you are considered a full human being. Which the reactionary justices obviously don’t consider women to be.

The best argument against this crazy opinion is the one I saw once - stating why use states? Why not let cities and or counties decide whether they support a woman’s’ right to control her own body? Wouldn’t that better represent the views of the people of each region? Or better yet, let each neighborhood decide how they want to handle this situation. Or…hear me out, maybe each block? Or better yet, let each woman decide how she wants to handle medical decisions over her own body?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

“Past lower court universal injunctions have been a subject of legal debate and scrutiny, particularly regarding their scope and impact on federal policy implementation. These injunctions, issued by lower federal courts, prevent the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, not just the specific parties in the case.While historically less common, their use has increased in recent years, leading to legal challenges and debate about their legitimacy.

Here's a breakdown of the key aspects:
What is a universal injunction?

• A universal injunction is a court order that applies nationwide, preventing the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the specific case.
• This differs from traditional injunctions, which typically only affect the parties directly involved in the lawsuit.

Historical Context:

• Historically, universal injunctions were rare and not a widely used remedy.
• Some legal scholars argue that they are a relatively recent innovation, particularly in the context of challenging executive orders and federal policies.
• The Supreme Court has acknowledged a rise in their use, particularly during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. ”

Note the term “rare and not a widely used remedy “

I, too, can ask AI to make my arguments for me:

"While critics argue that universal injunctions are a recent and potentially improper innovation, this view overlooks both historical precedent and the practical necessity of such remedies in a modern, federal legal system.

Historical Usage Is Understated
Although some scholars claim universal injunctions are new, courts have issued broad injunctive relief for decades. For example, in Desegregation-era cases and major civil rights litigation, courts routinely issued broad orders that affected parties beyond the immediate plaintiffs. These injunctions weren’t controversial because they were seen as essential to enforce constitutional rights effectively.

Structural Justification in Federal Law
The U.S. legal system allows lower courts to declare federal laws or policies unconstitutional. If a court finds a federal action unconstitutional, limiting the injunction only to the named plaintiffs can undermine equal protection by forcing identical lawsuits across the country just to achieve the same protection. Universal injunctions ensure uniform application of constitutional rights and avoid judicial inefficiency.

Checks on Executive Overreach
The rise in universal injunctions during recent administrations doesn’t necessarily reflect judicial overreach—it may instead reflect growing executive action without congressional input. As the executive branch increasingly issues sweeping policies via executive order, courts must sometimes respond with equally broad remedies to maintain the separation of powers.

Existing Judicial Constraints Remain
Courts are already bound by Article III standing requirements and the standards for equitable relief. Judges must justify the scope of any injunction, and such decisions are subject to appeal. This means the system already contains checks to prevent abuse.

Conclusion
Rather than being a dangerous or novel legal tool, universal injunctions are a necessary safeguard in a complex and increasingly centralized federal landscape. They help ensure that constitutional protections are meaningful for all, not just for a few lucky litigants."

Checkmate, Sendai.

 

[Sendai]

I, too, can ask AI to make my arguments for me:

"While critics argue that universal injunctions are a recent and potentially improper innovation, this view overlooks both historical precedent and the practical necessity of such remedies in a modern, federal legal system.

Historical Usage Is Understated
Although some scholars claim universal injunctions are new, courts have issued broad injunctive relief for decades. For example, in Desegregation-era cases and major civil rights litigation, courts routinely issued broad orders that affected parties beyond the immediate plaintiffs. These injunctions weren’t controversial because they were seen as essential to enforce constitutional rights effectively.

Structural Justification in Federal Law
The U.S. legal system allows lower courts to declare federal laws or policies unconstitutional. If a court finds a federal action unconstitutional, limiting the injunction only to the named plaintiffs can undermine equal protection by forcing identical lawsuits across the country just to achieve the same protection. Universal injunctions ensure uniform application of constitutional rights and avoid judicial inefficiency.

Checks on Executive Overreach
The rise in universal injunctions during recent administrations doesn’t necessarily reflect judicial overreach—it may instead reflect growing executive action without congressional input. As the executive branch increasingly issues sweeping policies via executive order, courts must sometimes respond with equally broad remedies to maintain the separation of powers.

Existing Judicial Constraints Remain
Courts are already bound by Article III standing requirements and the standards for equitable relief. Judges must justify the scope of any injunction, and such decisions are subject to appeal. This means the system already contains checks to prevent abuse.

Conclusion
Rather than being a dangerous or novel legal tool, universal injunctions are a necessary safeguard in a complex and increasingly centralized federal landscape. They help ensure that constitutional protections are meaningful for all, not just for a few lucky litigants."

Checkmate, Sendai.

“Historically, desegregation cases in the United States, such as the landmark
Brown v. Board of Education case, were typically brought as class actions rather than utilizing universal or nationwide injunctions in the way they are being used more recently.
Class Action vs. Universal Injunctions:

• Class Actions: These lawsuits are brought on behalf of a group of people who share the same legal issue. The court's ruling applies to all members of the class.
• Universal Injunctions: These injunctions block government policies from being enforced against everyone, regardless of whether they were parties to the specific lawsuit.

In the context of desegregation:

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This crucial case declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional. While it was a class action that benefited a group of affected individuals, the court did not issue a nationwide injunction in the modern sense. The ruling established a precedent that undermined the legal basis of segregation and provided a framework for future desegregation efforts across the country.
• Later desegregation cases: Following Brown, subsequent cases like Green v. County School Board and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg saw the Supreme Court issue mandates and outline specific factors to ensure the dismantling of segregation. However, these efforts generally focused on achieving desegregation within individual school districts rather than using a broad nationwide injunction.

Evolution of Universal Injunctions:

• Universal injunctions, also referred to as nationwide injunctions, are a relatively recent developmentand have seen a significant increase in use in recent years, particularly in the last decade.
• While there is debate among scholars regarding the historical roots of universal injunctions, some argue that they have been used in various forms over time, although perhaps less frequently than they are today.
• Their use has become a subject of scrutiny, with some Supreme Court justices raising concerns about their legality and scope. According to NPR, Justice Clarence Thomas has referred to them as "legally and historically dubious".
• The Supreme Court has recently limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, stating that they likely exceed the equitable authority granted by Congress. This means federal judges will generally be limited to blocking policies only for the specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

In summary, while desegregation cases like Brown v. Board of Education led to significant legal changes regarding segregation, they did so through class actions and subsequent legal challenges, rather than through the use of broad universal or nationwide injunctions in the way that this judicial tool is being used and debated today. “

 

[Lapaz]

I'll leave this here:

In fairness, the movement is to end birthright citizenship for illegals that give birth. I think they clearly are citizens based in the constitution, but I think there is a fair argument that they shouldn’t get automatic citizenship if both parents are illegals and that the constitution should be changed. I think many people game the current constitution to get citizenship for their kids, and that is wrong. The sticky issue is that the kids must have citizenship somewhere, and it should only apply as long as the kids still have citizenship in their parents’ countries. For countries that don’t grant them citizenship, I would prioritize capturing and removing their illegals.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

In fairness, the movement is to end birthright citizenship for illegals that give birth. I think they clearly are citizens based in the constitution, but I think there is a fair argument that they shouldn’t get automatic citizenship if both parents are illegals and that the constitution should be changed. I think many people game the current constitution to get citizenship for their kids, and that is wrong. The sticky issue is that the kids must have citizenship somewhere, and it should only apply as long as the kids still have citizenship in their parents’ countries. For countries that don’t grant them citizenship, I would prioritize capturing and removing their illegals.

In fairness, it's not just about "illegals" given birthright citizenship, it's about non-citizens granted the rights that our Constitution enumerates.

 

[Sendai]

Which is a horrible, reductive and even abusive ruling. How can bodily autonomy depend on where you live? It doesn’t if you are considered a full human being. Which the reactionary justices obviously don’t consider women to be.

The best argument against this crazy opinion is the one I saw once - stating why use states? Why not let cities and or counties decide whether they support a woman’s’ right to control her own body? Wouldn’t that better represent the views of the people of each region? Or better yet, let each neighborhood decide how they want to handle this situation. Or…hear me out, maybe each block? Or better yet, let each woman decide how she wants to handle medical decisions over her own body?

States are free to grant cities and counties the power if they choose. Many states, even red, codified abortion rights after Roe’s reversal. I was able to vote for such protections in my state.

 

[MT15]

So, birthright citizenship should be the law of the land, unless the Constitution is amended. We gain far, far more than we lose with immigrants of all types. It wasn’t that long ago that the Irish and German and Polish immigrants were looked down on as lesser people, let’s not repeat that bigotry now. We should be better than that. My view is that changing the Constitution over this would be a grave mistake, driven by bigotry.

Also, SCOTUS leaving this up to various regions of the country is just horrible leadership. So a baby born in NY is automatically a citizen, but a baby born in KY may not be a citizen? What happen if that baby travels to KY? is their citizenship now in question? It’s flat out stupid.

Also if they allow that to stand, the net effect will be a migration out of red states who restrict citizenship into blue states who follow the Constitution. Blue states’ economies will benefit and red states economies will suffer - which is already what is happening as it is now. It will just accelerate that trend.

 

[Sendai]

So, birthright citizenship should be the law of the land, unless the Constitution is amended. We gain far, far more than we lose with immigrants of all types. It wasn’t that long ago that the Irish and German and Polish immigrants were looked down on as lesser people, let’s not repeat that bigotry now. We should be better than that. My view is that changing the Constitution over this would be a grave mistake, driven by bigotry.

Also, SCOTUS leaving this up to various regions of the country is just horrible leadership. So a baby born in NY is automatically a citizen, but a baby born in KY may not be a citizen? What happen if that baby travels to KY? is their citizenship now in question? It’s flat out stupid.

Also if they allow that to stand, the net effect will be a migration out of red states who restrict citizenship into blue states who follow the Constitution. Blue states’ economies will benefit and red states economies will suffer - which is already what is happening as it is now. It will just accelerate that trend.

The are a number of cases in the pipeline. It’ll be settled before the end of the next Supreme Court term.

And birthright citizenship will stand.

I would support an amendment to end it though.