What to know about US birthright citizenship?
President Donald Trump's executive order denying US citizenship to the children of parents living in the country illegally drew immediate legal challenges across the country
Seattle: President Donald Trump’s executive order denying US citizenship to the children of parents living in the country illegally faced the first of what will be many legal tests on Thursday. It didn’t fare well.
A Justice Department lawyer had barely started making his arguments in a Seattle courtroom when US District Judge John C Coughenour began blistering him with questions, calling the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” Coughenour went on to temporarily block it pending further arguments.
Here are some things to know about the decision and the lawsuits challenging Trump’s order.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the principle that someone born in a country is a citizen of that country. In the United States, it’s enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It was ratified in 1868 to ensure the citizenship of former slaves after the Civil War.
Critics of unfettered immigration have argued that provides an incentive for people to come to, or remain in, the US illegally: They know that if they have children in the US, those children will be citizens, who might later petition for them to become legal permanent residents.
In an effort to curb unlawful immigration, Trump issued the executive order just after being sworn in for his second term on Monday. Trump’s order drew immediate legal challenges across the country, with at least five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups. A lawsuit brought by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois was the first to get a hearing.
What’s next for the legal challenges?
The judge’s ruling on 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 US 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.
Why did the judge block Trump’s order?
Coughenour did not detail his reasoning during Thursday’s hearing, but his assertion that the order is “blatantly unconstitutional,” as well as point-blank questioning of DOJ attorney Brett Shumate — and his lack of questions for Washington’s assistant attorney general, Lane Polozola — suggested he agreed with the States’ arguments.
The States say it’s well-settled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship and that the President lacks authority to determine who should or should not be granted US citizenship at birth.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is,” Coughenour told Shumate.
The Department of Justice later said in a statement that it will “vigorously defend” the President’s executive order.
“We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the department said.
Who is the judge?
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.
Newly elected Washington Attorney General Nick Brown — a former Seattle US attorney — said after Thursday’s hearing that he wasn’t surprised by Coughenour’s reaction to the “absurdity” of the executive order.
Among the thousands of cases Coughenour has handled, covering everything from criminal to environmental law, probably the most famous was that of “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam. Ressam was arrested entering the US in December 1999 with a trunk full of explosives and plans to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year’s Eve.
Coughenour repeatedly butted heads with federal prosecutors during Ressam’s sentencing, disagreeing about how much credit Ressam should receive for cooperating with them after his conviction. Twice Coughenour sentenced Ressam to 22 years — far less than prosecutors were seeking — and twice the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned him.
Coughenour finally sentenced Ressam to 37 years in 2012. At the time, he said Ressam’s case was the only one he could think of in which the appeals court deemed him too lenient.
