An executive order President Donald Trump signed Monday night vows to end birthright citizenship in the U.S., despite broad legal consensus that the Constitution guarantees American citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. Trump’s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. to mothers who are in the country illegally or here legally on visas, if the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order would deny U.S. citizenship, including passports, to those children born in the U.S. starting 30 days from now, if at least one parent isn’t an American citizen or green card holder.

Immigrant rights advocates are expected to quickly file legal challenges to Trump’s decree. The Supreme Court ruled more than a century ago that children born in the U.S. to foreign parents are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. The only legally recognized exception applies when both parents are diplomats with immunity from U.S. laws. However, a handful of legal scholars who favor a crackdown on immigration contend the 1898 ruling has been interpreted too broadly, and the current Supreme Court could allow the government to set stricter standards for citizenship. It’s also unclear whether the courts will conclude Trump has any power to address the issue without an act of Congress to back him up.

It took less than two hours for President Donald Trump to be hit with a lawsuit over his executive order seeking to end the practice of near-universal birthright citizenship in the U.S. Immigrant rights advocates brought the suit Monday night in federal court in New Hampshire on behalf of a group representing Indonesian migrants in that state, along with other groups representing Latinos and so-called Dreamers — individuals brought to the U.S. as children by parents who entered or remained in the country illegally. It’s the first of a wave of suits expected to be filed over Trump’s order. State officials from California and Illinois, among others, have indicated plans to sue over the president’s directive, which was widely advertised in advance.

The suit filed in New Hampshire contends that Trump’s order violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as well as federal law that has been on the books for more than 80 years. “Neither the Constitution nor any federal statute confers any authority on the President to redefine American citizenship,” the suit says. “By attempting to limit the right to birthright citizenship, the Order exceeds the President’s authority and runs afoul of the Constitution and federal statute.” The suit also says Trump’s order, if enforced, could render some children stateless.

The complaint in the case was signed by a total of 26 attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, State Democracy Defenders Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the Asian Law Caucus and lists New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens and Make the Road New York as the plaintiffs in the case.

Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

highdesert wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2025 10:31 am The 2nd Amendment seems clear, but the federal government and states have placed restrictions on that Constitutional amendment, just like there are restrictions on the 1st Amendment and many other amendments. Like any EOs or laws they have to be tested in the courts. The 14th Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. US courts might eventually allow a federal law that states only children born to a mother who is a legal resident of the US are US citizens. Who knows what the future holds.

Four Democratic-led states will urge a federal judge in Seattle on Thursday to block U.S. President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing the Republican's executive order curtailing the right to automatic birthright citizenship in the United States. The executive order has already become the subject of five lawsuits by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, who call it flagrantly unconstitutional. Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle is scheduled to hear arguments on a request by Democratic state attorneys general from Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon for a temporary restraining order that would prevent Trump's administration from carrying out a key component of his immigration crackdown. That executive order, which Trump signed on Monday after taking office, directs U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. In a brief filed late Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice described the order as an "integral part" of the president's efforts "to address this nation's broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border."

The lawsuit filed in Seattle has been progressing the fastest of the five cases brought over the executive order. It has been assigned to Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. Absent judicial intervention, any children born after Feb. 19 whose mothers or fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents would be subject to deportation and would be prevented from obtaining Social Security numbers, various government benefits and the ability as they get older to work lawfully. More than 150,000 newborn children would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order is allowed to stand, the Democratic-led states argue. The lawsuits argue that Trump's executive order violates the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen. Democratic state attorneys general say that understanding of the citizenship clause was cemented 127 years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to U.S. citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 following the Civil War and overturned the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared that the U.S. Constitution did not apply to enslaved Black people. But the Justice Department in its brief argued that the 14th Amendment had never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the country, and that the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark concerned only children of permanent residents. The Justice Department said the four states' case also "flunks multiple threshold hurdles". It said only individuals, not states, can pursue claims under the citizenship clause and that the states lack legal standing to sue over Trump's order.

President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is "blatantly unconstitutional," a federal judge said Thursday, temporarily blocking it nationwide, multiple outlets reported. The decision came a day after the president offered his first defense of the order, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents and undocumented immigrants. The president's order would also extend to parents in the country legally but temporarily, like foreign students, workers or tourists.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour sided for now with four states that sued — Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington. They had argued the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court case law guarantee the right to birthright citizenship. The temporary restraining order is in effect for 14 days, the judge said. Trump signed the order on his first day in office Monday, and was swiftly met by lawsuits from every state with a Democratic attorney general.

The case ruled on Thursday is just one of five lawsuits brought by 22 states, along with other challenges filed by immigrants rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union. Trump had floated the prospect of ending birthright citizenship in his first term too, but didn't follow through at the time.

Well, bad news. Trump has sided with Big Pharma and Medicaid and rescinded this directive, which means all the costs will skyrocket again! MAGA! Or MAHA? Which one are we using now?

Anyhow, this was one of the roughly 100 executive orders and directives that Trump signed on day one of his Reign of Terror, Part 2. Congrats, you played yourself. Enjoy rationing your insulin and heart medicine. You owned the libs good!

The judge’s ruling Thursday was a temporary restraining order. It blocked the administration from enforcing or implementing Trump’s order nationally for the next 14 days. Over the next two weeks, the sides will submit further briefings on the legal merits of the executive order. Coughenour scheduled another hearing Feb. 6 to hear arguments on whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would block the executive order long term while the case proceeds.

In the meantime, some of the other cases challenging the order are also getting underway. The next hearing is in a case brought in Maryland by CASA, a nonprofit that supports children who have been abused or neglected in foster care. That’s set for Feb. 5 at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. Another lawsuit, led by New Jersey on behalf of 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, and a challenge brought in Massachusetts by the Brazilian Worker Center do not yet have hearings scheduled. Aside from arguing the executive order’s constitutionality, the states say the order would subject all the children affected by it to deportation and make many of them stateless. It would strip them of their rights and render them unable to participate in economic or civic life, the states argue.

Coughenour, 84, got his law degree from the University of Iowa in 1966 and was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. He’s been a federal judge for more than four decades; he has taken semi-retired “senior status” but continues hearing cases. He has a reputation as a tough, independent and sometimes cantankerous jurist.