A Boston District Judge upheld the constitution. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Boston Court Ruling Against Trump
US News reports Fourth Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that would end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, becoming the fourth judge to do so.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin came three days after U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked the executive order and follows similar rulings in Seattle and Maryland.
Sorokin said in a 31-page ruling that the “Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described” in the president’s executive order.
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” the attorneys general said in a statement.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin was appointed by President Barack Obama.
New Hampshire District Court
On February 10, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante in New Hampshire was the third judge to block Trump’s executive order.
Laplante, nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, said he wasn’t persuaded by the Trump administration’s defense of the executive order.
Seattle District Court
On February 6, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour blocked Trump’s Executive Order.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” said Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.”
Blatantly Unconstitutional
Trump’s action is “blatantly unconstitutional”. Judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans have concluded the same thing.
Politics has nothing to do with this. It’s important to note there is nothing controversial about any of these rulings other than perhaps some of the colorful judicial language.
The district and appeals courts are obligated to uphold prior Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld birthright citizenship. Only the Supreme Court itself can change that ruling.
Nonsense from the New York Times
A friend told me to look at a guest opinion piece on the New York Times Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship by Mr. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Mr. Wurman a law professor at the University of Minnesota.
I did, and the article is little more than a silly rehash of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
The NYT authors go back to 1862 and even Calvin’s Case, a 1608 judicial decision about who were birthright subjects of the English monarch, written by Edward Coke.
What nonsense. A 1608 case has zero merit as the US was not even a country. Anything from 1862 was superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868 and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898.
The New York Times is looking for clickbait titles and succeeded.
Birthright Citizenship and 19th-Century ‘Illegal Aliens’
Every time I dig into Birthright Citizenship, I discover new compelling reasons for it.
Today, Wall Street Journal writer Jason L. Riley discusses Birthright Citizenship and 19th-Century ‘Illegal Aliens’
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to people in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
The court typically decides to hear a case when there are conflicting lower-court rulings on an issue, but so far there has been little if any such disagreement. Last week, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin became the fourth federal judge to block Mr. Trump’s order. “In a lengthy 1898 decision, the Supreme Court examined the Citizenship Clause,” he wrote, “rejecting the interpretation expressed in the [Trump executive order]. The rule and reasoning from that decision were reiterated and applied in later decisions, adopted by Congress as a matter of federal statutory law in 1940, and followed consistently by the Executive Branch for the past 100 years, at least.”
Judge Sorokin was appointed by Barack Obama, but judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Joe Biden have offered the same interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in blocking Mr. Trump’s order. The “Executive Order contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it,” wrote U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a Bush appointee, in a ruling earlier this month.
It is generally agreed the birthright citizenship rule excludes the children of foreign ambassadors and foreign enemies who are occupying the country. Before the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, it also excluded most Native American children. The Trump administration and some of its supporters say that Congress never intended for the children of people here illegally to be on that list, but lawmakers living in the late 1800s may have disagreed. The 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to overturn the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott ruling and grant birthright citizenship to former slaves and their offspring.
But not all slaves were here legally. Although the U.S. banned the importation of slaves in 1808, an illegal international slave trade continued for decades. In a case that was front-page news at the time, Abraham Lincoln refused to pardon Capt. Nathaniel Gordon, who was convicted of slave trading in 1861. Transporting slaves had been a capital offense since 1820, and Gordon was hanged. “This was a landmark in the history of the slave trade,” wrote historian Hugh Thomas in his definitive study, “though it was not quite a turning point, for old ways survived, even in the North of the United States.”
According to the legal scholar Gerald Neuman, by the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, there were tens of thousands of black people in the U.S. who had been brought here illegally. Naturally, some of them later bore children. It thus would seem that for authors of the Citizenship Clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” included the children of parents in the country without authorization.
Mr. Trump and his supporters see birthright citizenship as a reward for breaking the law. Yet the Citizenship Clause concerns children, not parents. The undocumented parents’ status doesn’t change after having a child in the U.S. Parents are still subject to fines, imprisonment and deportation depending on the circumstances.
The administration has said it will appeal the lower-court rulings, and the Supreme Court may yet decide to weigh in. Mr. Trump’s gambit doesn’t amount to a constitutional crisis, but that doesn’t make it a wise use of his political capital.
Not Even Close
Given the US Supreme Court has already twice ruled on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it would be shocking if any District or Appeals Court would rule any other way.
On January 21, I wrote Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already.
On January 23, I wrote A Court Appointee of Reagan Correctly Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship.
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Coughenour said of Trump’s executive order, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
I further discussed the key rulings in What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
It is clear the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” was understood. And that meaning was upheld in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943 as cited by Judge Coughenour.
A Terrible Policy as Currently Practiced?
I can easily see why some people would believe that. But they are wrong.
This is a subject that came up with other friends of mine, one of whom has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
Friend One (studied law but is not a lawyer):
I am not a lawyer, but I am very much an originalist (and that makes you put a lot of emphasis on the text as written at that time). To me this a clear put down on Trump. Too much time has passed and society and the government has had a common shared view on this for many, many decades. In a logical world this should be 9-0.
Friend Two (Constitutional Expert):
Well, you have stated very well the rationale that underlies the doctrine of res judicata. Generations of immigrants — and by extension, their offspring — have literally for hundreds of years relied on the common understanding of the law. Even if that was technically wrong in retrospect, res judicata says that you cannot unsettle the lives of law-abiding people who have relied on what the courts said the law was. I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.
It would open a hornets’ nest, since most 19th century immigrants were never naturalized — it was understood that one’s kids were Americans by birthright — and thus most of the US population would be rendered aliens. We have no precedents to deal with this and it would be a total judicial mess.
Look at the Constitution itself. It plainly requires that: No Person except a NATURAL BORN Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” So the concept of a person being a “natural born” American is right in the Constitution.
Res Judicata
Res judicata refers to the principle by which one judgment has a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.
My friend comments “I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.”
Recent cases may be easier to understand. What about a couple who came into the US illegally 25 years ago at age 35? They had kids who are now suddenly not citizens. Those kids might have kids who are not citizens then either.
Today, Jason L. Riley brings yet another complication into play, that of children of slaves illegally in the US.
Q: Is the Supreme Court really going to mess with this? Let Trump say it only starts now?
A: No and No.
People are entitled to believe whatever clickbait nonsense they want. But there is no legal construct that allows Trump to change the constitution from this point forward by executive order.
Trump has appealed the case. He will lose in appeals court. His view is so constitutionally ridiculous that I wonder if the Supreme Court would even take the case.
If so, expect no better than 6-3 against Trump, and likely 9-0.