The Federal Court of Appeal in Massachusetts confirmed the block for President Donald Trump’s executive order, who tried to get rid of the children born in the United States of their citizenship, which meant the last legal defeat for administration. The decision strengthens the protection of the 14th Amendment and sets out the phase for the potential review of the Supreme Court.
Also read | Trump’s Order for Citizenship Trump was guaranteed by the National Court of Appeal
Why did the Court of Appeal block Trump’s executive order?
The first US Court of Appeal confirmed the preliminary order for President Donald Trump’s executive order, which was to stop automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are illegally or temporarily in the country.
The panel of three judges concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the children described in the order are entitled to citizenship on native law under the Citizenship Dialery.
“History lessons” give us every reason to be aware of the last effort to the breakage of our established tradition to recognize citizenship of birth and make citizenship depend on parents’ conduct rather than – in all the most precious circumstances – on the simple fact that it is born in the United States. “
This is the Fifth Federal Court since June, which either issues or adhere to the orders blocking Trump’s Directive on Citizenship of Birth. The decision strengthens an earlier decision that prevents the order to enter into effect during litigation.
Also read | Confusion and anxiety to grip communities after the US Supreme Court’s decision
What do civil servants say about the decision?
California General Prosecutor Rob Bonta, representing one of the nearly 20 states that question the order, appreciated the court’s decision.
“The first district reaffirmed what we already knew was true: the President’s attack on spelling citizenship apparently defies the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution and the national order is the only reasonable way to protect against its catastrophic consequences.
How did groups of civil rights react?
Civil freedom organization, including the US Civil Freedom Union (ACLU), was also encouraged by a decision.
“The Federal Court of Appeal has strengthened today that this executive order is an apparent violation of the US Constitution – and we agree. Our constitution is clear: no politician can decide which of those born in this country deserves citizenship,” said Sangyeob Kim, lawyer of New Hampshire.
The case included plaintiffs such as the support of the Indonesian community in New Hampshire and the league of united Latin American citizens, which represents wider community interests.
What is the reaction of Trump’s administration?
The White House claimed that the sentence 14. The appendix “is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” excludes certain children and claim that citizenship should not be automatically used only at birth.
“The court incorrectly interprets at 14. Appendix. We look forward to justifying the Supreme Court,” said White House spokesman Abigail Jackson.
The administration asked the Supreme Court to maintain the order and initiate a process that could lead to a definitive decision by the beginning of next summer.
Also read | Scotus Justice Kagan Slams Trump Admin in the Law of Birth: “Every judgment is…”
How does it fit into a wider legal context?
The executive order signed on the day of the inauguration, January 20, faced immediate legal challenges. The action was filed within two hours of signing the order. In February, the federal judge temporarily blocked him, which caused an appeal heard 1. August.
Other federal courts, including judges in Boston, Maryland, New Hampshire and San Francisco, have similarly blocked the order of nationwide level and quoted its conflict with 14.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts could not usually issue nationwide orders, but left an open possibility of court orders with broad effects in cases such as class lawsuits or state lawsuits.
The historical precedent supports citizenship of birth in the United States. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen on the basis of birth on American soil.
Also read | Great victory for Trump? SC limits the power of judges about nationwide court orders
What happens next?
It is expected that, with a decision against the order against this order, more appeal decisions will be reached to the Supreme Court. Judges can issue a definitive judgment on whether the President can unilaterally reduce citizenship for childbirth, potentially shape constitutional interpretation and immigration right for the coming years.
(Tagstotranslate) Federal Court of Appeal
