Federal Appeals Court Deals Setback to Trump’s Bid to Abolish Birthright Citizenship | CNN Politics

A recent decision by a federal appeals court took a significant stand against President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. The ruling declared the order unconstitutional and reinforced a nationwide block on the controversial policy.

This judgment came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which voted 2-1 on the matter. Earlier, the Supreme Court had requested lower courts to reevaluate several nationwide injunctions related to Trump’s order. The focus was on ensuring these injunctions weren’t unnecessarily broad.

The appeals court upheld an injunction granted by a federal judge in Seattle, which was initiated by a group of states led by Democrats. Judge Ronald Gould, who authored the majority opinion, stated that this broad injunction was essential for the states to obtain complete relief. He emphasized that limiting the injunction geographically wouldn’t sufficiently protect the states from potential harm.

This ruling is historic, as it’s the first time an appeals court has fully deemed Trump’s order unconstitutional. The administration could seek a review from the full 9th Circuit or even take the case directly to the Supreme Court.

In the ruling, Gould noted that Trump’s order contradicts the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution and earlier Supreme Court rulings, particularly a landmark 1898 decision involving Wong Kim Ark. This case established that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, reinforcing centuries of precedent.

Currently, Trump’s order is barred on a national level, following a class-action lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. This lawsuit aims to protect infants who would be affected by the proposed policy.

Interestingly, there was a dissent from Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee. He questioned whether the states had the legal standing to challenge the executive order, suggesting that it might be premature to explore the citizenship issue.

Historical context illustrates the long debate over citizenship in the U.S. The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted broadly for over a century. This ruling may mark a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle over immigration policy.

Current discussions on social media reveal varied reactions. Some believe this ruling is a victory for immigrants’ rights, while others argue it challenges the power of the executive branch.

In related statistics, a recent survey showed that about 70% of Americans favor maintaining birthright citizenship. This sentiment reflects a broader perspective on immigration, emphasizing inclusion and diversity.

Moving forward, the outcome of this case will likely influence future policies and decisions surrounding citizenship and immigration in the U.S. It’s a critical moment in American legal history that underscores ongoing debates about rights and governance.



Source link