Birthright citizenship order is put on hold by a second federal judge

8,730 Views | 76 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Sharpshooter
infinity ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?

How will Trump get around these judges?
The judge is okay with misuse.


President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order is put on hold by a second federal judge
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/02/05/trump-birthright-citizenship-4/


By Michael Kunzelman | Associated Press and Mike Catalini | Associated Press
UPDATED: February 5, 2025 at 12:33 PM CST

GREENBELT, Md. A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a second nationwide pause on President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. to someone in the country illegally, calling citizenship a "most precious right."
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman said no court in the country has endorsed the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
"This court will not be the first," she said.

She added: "Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

Boardman said citizenship is a "national concern that demands a uniform policy," adding that "only a nationwide injunction will provide complete relief to the plaintiffs."
After reading her ruling from the bench, the judge asked a government attorney if they would be appealing her decision. The attorney said he didn't have the authority to immediately take a position on that question.

Trump's inauguration week order had already been on temporary hold nationally because of a separate suit brought by four states in Washington state, where a judge called the order "blatantly unconstitutional."
That temporary hold is set to expire on Thursday. Boardman's preliminary injunction puts the executive order on hold until the merits of the case are resolved, barring a successful appeal by the Trump administration.
In total, 22 states, as well as other organizations, have sued to try to stop the executive action. Further hearings, similar to the one Boardman conducted on Wednesday, are due later this week in other birthright citizenship cases.

Boardman, nominated by former President Joe Biden, agreed to the preliminary injunction after a hearing federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Immigrant-rights advocacy groups CASA and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and a handful of expectant mothers brought the suit before Boardman.
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that determined Scott, a slave, wasn't a citizen.
"The principle of birthright citizenship is a foundation of our national democracy, is woven throughout the laws of our nation, and has shaped a shared sense of national belonging for generation after generation of citizens," the plaintiffs argued in the suit.

The Trump administration asserts that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
"The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws," the government argued in reply to the Maryland plaintiffs' suit.

The 14th Amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
In addition to the 22 states with Democratic attorneys general seeking to stop the order, 18 Republican attorneys general announced this week that they're seeking to defend the president's order by joining one of the federal suits brought in New Hampshire.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
During his first week in office, Trump signed 10 executive orders on immigration and issued edicts to carry out promises of mass deportations and border security.

Some actions were felt immediately. Others face legal challenges. If they happen at all, other orders may take years to happen but have led to fear in immigrant communities.
Whether Trump can enact his agenda could come down to money. Congress is expected to consider funding support soon. Trump may use emergency powers to tap the Defense Department, as he did for a border wall during his first term.
Bondag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lets get it to the supreme court to rule on if birthright applies to slaves or anchor babies.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is one we all expect to go to he SC. It'll be up to them to give the final decision.

So far, this is going the typical route.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This was expected because the issue must be decided by the Supreme Court.

Having a district court block it is simply step 1.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
samurai_science
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No Spin Ag said:

This is one we all expect to go to he SC. It'll be up to them to give the final decision.

So far, this is going the typical route.
Or congress
Sharpshooter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the SC follows lower courts, time to try an amendment.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roberts or any justices have kids on USAID payroll?
SunrayAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe this was fully expected... and intended. He wants it to be kicked up the ladder to the supremes and get a ruling there.
Cibalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait so now these federal judges care about the constitution?
Ryan the Temp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SunrayAg said:

I believe this was fully expected... and intended. He wants it to be kicked up the ladder to the supremes and get a ruling there.
That's why he's shoveling out mountains of EOs right out of the gate - it maximizes his ability to get them through the court system while he remains in office.
Trajan88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the Supreme Court takes this up and declares there's no "birthright citizenship" ... that will rock the world for sure.

Thermonuclear meltdown by the left, progressives for sure.
Old May Banker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Make congress pass a law.
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bondag said:

Lets get it to the supreme court to rule on if birthright applies to slaves or anchor babies.


Yes it is clear it was written for slaves (not slaves but former slaves and descendants) and never anchor babies.
I wish a buck was still silver, it was back, when the country was strong.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cibalo said:

Wait so now these federal judges care about the constitution?
No. That "right" is not expressly in the 14th amendment.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How does it always seem to go back to a liberal judge appointed by Obama or Biden?
unmade bed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SunrayAg said:

I believe this was fully expected... and intended. He wants it to be kicked up the ladder to the supremes and get a ruling there.


Let's hope that works.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
annie88 said:

How does it always seem to go back to a liberal judge appointed by Obama or Biden?


Same reason that all of Paxton's cases get before a Trump judge: forum shopping.

I'm Gipper
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heineken-Ashi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
By removing them from the United States
fightingfarmer09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No Spin Ag said:

This is one we all expect to go to he SC. It'll be up to them to give the final decision.

So far, this is going the typical route.
From the lawyers I have followed on X the general opinion is that the EO Trump has been using are very well thought out and written compared to last time. They have had 4 years to precisely word them for maximum success.
BarnacleBill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Roberts or any justices have kids on USAID payroll?
Not any more...
SunrayAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alot of people are not fully aware of how badly this is abused. Not just by illegal immigrants who are trying to live here.

There are agencies in other countries offering birth tourism packages, to have your baby in the states and get your baby cradle to grave entitlements whether you live in the states or not.

Many years ago I lived in the lower valley and occasionally crossed the border for shopping or entertainment purposes.

Always thought it was weird how there were multiple young ladies in extremely late stages of pregnancy just hanging around on the other side of the bridge. But then my boss told me about "bridge babies". The pregnant ladies waddle across at go time, fall down and scream... and the taxpayers of Texas pay for the ambulance, and the delivery, and 13 years of education... and cradle to grave government handouts, for a kid who still lives in Matamoros.

I wonder if Elon will be able to find out how much welfare, food stamps, and housing assistance we send to "citizens" who live in other countries?
Texas Tea
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
Great point! To take your logic one step further, how can we enforce immigration laws against anyone?
Line Ate Member
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At least ICE now has some new people to come and pick up
waitwhat?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

This was expected because the issue must be decided by the Supreme Court.

Having a district court block it is simply step 1.
It could be decided by a constitutional amendment to clarify it. And in a sane world, it would be an easy amendment to pass and ratify.

There is absolutely no rational reason to support citizenship for babies of foreign nationals just because they're born on US soil.
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul

Big Tech IS the empire of lies

TEXIT
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The ruling we're looking for is that if you are here legally but not a citizen, yeah your kid gets citizenship as established in Wong BUT if you are NOT here legally then the 14th doesn't apply to you or you kids
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
The term "Subject", as written in the constitution, references a person's allegience to the country.

I have no allegience to Mexico and therefore am not a subject of Mexico but I still have to follow Mexican law while in Mexico.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's see if we can find these activist judges on the USAID payroll, shall we?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
An infant cannot consent to being a subject of the United States. They are one by virtue of their parents, who are not subjects, because of the illegal manner in which they came into the country. i.e. they are not willing to subject themselves to U.S. jurisdiction by entering properly.
sharpdressedman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep. It would put the overturn of RvW in the shadows.
80sGeorge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Originalist vs Activist confrontation of the century
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BTKAG97 said:

unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
The term "Subject", as written in the constitution, references a person's allegience to the country.

I have no allegience to Mexico and therefore am not a subject of Mexico but I still have to follow Mexican law while in Mexico.


So if a child is born here, lives here, goes to school here, and has never been to Mexico and has no desire to go to Mexico, who does their allegiance belong to?
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
infinity ag said:


How will Trump get around these judges?
The judge is okay with misuse.


President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order is put on hold by a second federal judge
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/02/05/trump-birthright-citizenship-4/


By Michael Kunzelman | Associated Press and Mike Catalini | Associated Press
UPDATED: February 5, 2025 at 12:33 PM CST

GREENBELT, Md. A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a second nationwide pause on President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. to someone in the country illegally, calling citizenship a "most precious right."
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman said no court in the country has endorsed the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
"This court will not be the first," she said.

She added: "Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

Boardman said citizenship is a "national concern that demands a uniform policy," adding that "only a nationwide injunction will provide complete relief to the plaintiffs."
After reading her ruling from the bench, the judge asked a government attorney if they would be appealing her decision. The attorney said he didn't have the authority to immediately take a position on that question.

Trump's inauguration week order had already been on temporary hold nationally because of a separate suit brought by four states in Washington state, where a judge called the order "blatantly unconstitutional."
That temporary hold is set to expire on Thursday. Boardman's preliminary injunction puts the executive order on hold until the merits of the case are resolved, barring a successful appeal by the Trump administration.
In total, 22 states, as well as other organizations, have sued to try to stop the executive action. Further hearings, similar to the one Boardman conducted on Wednesday, are due later this week in other birthright citizenship cases.

Boardman, nominated by former President Joe Biden, agreed to the preliminary injunction after a hearing federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland. Immigrant-rights advocacy groups CASA and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and a handful of expectant mothers brought the suit before Boardman.
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that determined Scott, a slave, wasn't a citizen.
"The principle of birthright citizenship is a foundation of our national democracy, is woven throughout the laws of our nation, and has shaped a shared sense of national belonging for generation after generation of citizens," the plaintiffs argued in the suit.

The Trump administration asserts that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
"The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws," the government argued in reply to the Maryland plaintiffs' suit.

The 14th Amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
In addition to the 22 states with Democratic attorneys general seeking to stop the order, 18 Republican attorneys general announced this week that they're seeking to defend the president's order by joining one of the federal suits brought in New Hampshire.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
During his first week in office, Trump signed 10 executive orders on immigration and issued edicts to carry out promises of mass deportations and border security.

Some actions were felt immediately. Others face legal challenges. If they happen at all, other orders may take years to happen but have led to fear in immigrant communities.
Whether Trump can enact his agenda could come down to money. Congress is expected to consider funding support soon. Trump may use emergency powers to tap the Defense Department, as he did for a border wall during his first term.

By appealing to the Supreme Court. This was to be expected.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unmade bed said:

If children of illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States how can the US enforce immigrations laws against them?
The same way any invading force would be repelled.

Do you think a bunch of court clerks were guarding American shores in WWII?

Did the japanese army have standing in court when they invaded the alutian islands? Or was the U.S. Army able to repeal them.

Obtuse, or simpleton?
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.