And it’s a universal injunction!
Recall that Trump issued an Executive Order trying to revoke the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship (of *course* he can’t revoke anything in the Constitution, that takes a constitutional amendment!) I’m pretty sure he knows that, but it didn’t stop him from trying. Birthright citizenship is the guarantee that our constitution gives to babies born in the U.S., regardless of whether their parents are citizens of the U.S., legal or otherwise.
BUT! Recall also that I told you that what this case was *really* about was trying to get the Supreme Court to basically ban universal injunctions. In other words, Trump and his cronies knew that the birthright citizenship thing wasn’t going to fly - but that didn’t matter as that was a red herring. They were going after universal injunctions, which in this context are when a federal court below the Supreme Court issues an injunction that is to be effective in the entire United States rather than just in the court’s state or district.
I also explained the Supreme Court’s ruling on universal injunctions, telling you that the ruling didn’t *really* bar universal injunctions, it just provided certain guidelines, while also giving a nod and a wink to using class actions as an alternative route to universiality.
Anyways, several states, including Washington, Arizona, and Oregon, sued the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship Executive Order, and the original court, the district court, said “nuh uh”, and issued an injunction.
Trump appealed it up to the United States Court of Appeals, and this is what they just said:
“Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon (“States”) and individual expectant mothers (“Individual Plaintiffs”) challenge as unconstitutional Executive Order No. 14160 (“Executive Order”), which purports to deny citizenship to the children born in United States territory of parents temporarily or unlawfully present in the United States. See Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). The district court entered a universal preliminary injunction which bars implementation of the Executive Order. Defendants appeal, contending that the States lack standing to challenge the Executive Order, that it was error to issue a preliminary injunction, and that the scope of the injunction is overbroad.
We address whether the Executive Order is constitutional and valid. We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “
And…
“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree. The Defendants’ proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868. This runs the risk of “extrapolat[ing]’ from the Constitution’s text and history ‘the values behind [that right], and then . . . enforc[ing] its guarantees only to the extent they serve (in the courts’ views) those underlying values.” United States v. Rahimi. We reject this approach because it is contrary to the express language of the Citizenship Clause, the reasoning of Wong Kim Ark, Executive Branch practice for the past 125 years, the legislative history to the extent that should be considered, and because it is contrary to justice.
AFFIRMED”
Booyah!
