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 – The White House

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/

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

The 4th Circuit has now joined the 9th Circuit in refusing to alter a district court injunction prohibiting the executive order from being carried out - nationwide.

 

[Sendai]

The 4th Circuit has now joined the 9th Circuit in refusing to alter a district court injunction prohibiting the executive order from being carried out - nationwide.

Be nice if all 13 Circuits weighed in the same.

 

[MT15]

The fact that one judge dissented is worrying to me. This of all things should be a slam dunk.

I’m still worried that this particular Supreme Court will at least partially give Trump a victory. We know there will be automatically 2 Justices that will rule in Trump’s favor.

 

[superchuck500]

The fact that one judge dissented is worrying to me. This of all things should be a slam dunk.

I’m still worried that this particular Supreme Court will at least partially give Trump a victory. We know there will be automatically 2 Justices that will rule in Trump’s favor.

The dissent isn't about the citizenship issue - it's purely over whether it's wise to have multiple nationwide injunctions over the same single executive order proceeding on their own appellate timelines in different circuits.

Purely a judicial management issue, not the case at all.

 

[MT15]

The dissent isn't about the citizenship issue - it's purely over whether it's wise to have multiple nationwide injunctions over the same single executive order proceeding on their own appellate timelines in different circuits.

Purely a judicial management issue, not the case at all.

Oh good, that makes me feel better.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

Just watch. This Supreme Court is very likely to give this some credence. Barrett has written somewhat in support of this interpretation in the past according to what I read. You know Alito and Thomas are all in. Gorsuch wouldn’t surprise me either. Roberts may be the swing vote, and I don’t trust him at all.

*I mean in support of the argument to change the interpretation of birthright citizenship.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[wardorican]

Not surprising. The damage would be too severe to change the 200+ year status quo while this is being challenged.

 

[Neworleansfan]

Can’t wait for the 5th circuit.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

not well versed on this- but correct me if wrong

so the DOJ basically wanting SCOTUS to say "not class action" but " individual" - meaning every single person who might be affected would have to file own lawsuit?

Basically making it impossible to stop the EO?

 

[superchuck500]

not well versed on this- but correct me if wrong

so the DOJ basically wanting SCOTUS to say "not class action" but " individual" - meaning every single person who might be affected would have to file own lawsuit?

Basically making it impossible to stop the EO?

Basically - only that it's not class action versus individual. It's that the plaintiffs are asking for the executive order to be enjoined in its entirety for any action (effectively freezing it from implementation at all) and DOJ is asking for the injunction to only apply to the plaintiffs in those cases.

So there's really two sets of issues here for the Court: (1) are the plaintiffs entitled to an injunction of the order based on the standards for obtaining an injunction, and (2) whether it's appropriate for a district court to enjoin the government from all implementation of the order based on these individual plaintiffs' cases.

The second issue is a wonky federal courts question that is separate from the merits of the 14th Amendment question. We saw in the 4th Circuit dissent, some judges have a narrower view of this power than others. There's decent arguments on both sides but if the court finds that the order is likely unconstitutional and that people are being irreparably harmed by its implementation, it's difficult to also conclude that it should only be enjoined for the named plaintiffs.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

There's decent arguments on both sides but if the court finds that the order is likely unconstitutional and that people are being irreparably harmed by its implementation, it's difficult to also conclude that it should only be enjoined for the named plaintiffs.

And then there's the Roberts Court...