Judge Kicks Trump's 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Citizenship F*ckery Into Sun
Adds White House attorneys should rethink their life choices.
A federal judge in Seattle yesterday blocked Donald Trump’s executive order that attempts to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States of America to non-citizen parents, calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The judge placed a two-week hold on the order, and will probably extend that after a full hearing set for February 6.
At yesterday’s hearing, US District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, told Brett Shumate, the Justice Department attorney arguing the administration’s case,
“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. […] This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Trump issued the blatantly unconstitutional executive order Monday afternoon, shortly after swearing at his inauguration that he would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Constitutional scholars point out that US presidents do not actually have the power to change the Constitution by themselves, not even if they ran on hating immigrants a whole lot.
The executive order sought to add a great big asterisk to the plain text of the 14th Amendment, which states quite plainly that
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.
The executive order claimed that only people who are already citizens or have permanent residence “are subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, a claim that courts have rejected since the 1890s, because if noncitizens have to follow the laws, then obviously they’re subject to US jurisdiction. Ergo, babies what are born here meet that definition too, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.
Trump’s order would end birthright citizenship not only for children of undocumented immigrants, but also children of parents in the US on a work or student visa, or under any other status short of permanent residency. Yes, you read that right, even if that part isn’t being reported widely enough. It’s part of Trump’s goal of radically limiting legal immigration as well.
In addition, the order directs US agencies to stop issuing documents for such children, like passports or Medicaid eligibility, and to reject any state documents saying they’re citizens.
This is just the first of at least five lawsuits against the executive order, and was brought by attorneys general for the states of Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois. All told, at least 22 states are challenging the order, buttressed by several suits being brought by immigrant rights groups.
Washington state Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola said the administration’s arguments were “absurd,” and pointed out that undocumented migrants are very much “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law when it comes to enforcement.
“Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?” Polozola asked. “Must they not follow the law while they are here?”
Polozola also said the order would cost states millions of dollars if they have to start changing their own healthcare and social service systems to determine whether every applicant is a citizen, permanent resident, or lesser human being:
“The executive order will impact hundreds of thousands of citizens nationwide who will lose their citizenship under this new rule,” Polozola said. “Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case.”
In a surprise twist, Shumate, the DOJ lawyer, did not suggest that all fetusus being carried by undocumented mothers be frozen until the Supreme Court settles the matter, then reimplanted. Expect him to be praised for his moderation.
Washington public station KUOW reports that Shumate tried to argue that there was no need to put the EO on hold, since it won’t go into effect until February 19, so there was plenty of time to hold another hearing before Coughenour did anything. We’ll just go with their narrative, because it helps convey how pissed the judge was, for good reason.
But Coughenour wasn't having it.
The judge quickly interrupted Shumate, asking if the attorney thought the order was constitutional. Shumate said he did, then tried to continue with his presentation.
Coughenour interrupted again.
"Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state that this is constitutional," he said.
Good onya, Judge Coughenour!
The judge also reflected on how he believed this case should be seen in historical context, saying, “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, 'Where were the judges? Where were the lawyers?’”
Former US Attorney Joyce Vance predicted that we should expect similar injunctions in other cases against Trump’s executive order, and that ultimately the Supreme Court will toss the order on its ear too. That’s not due to any outbreak of accountability or return to judicial norms in the Trump Court. Rather, her prediction is
based on an understanding of how foundationally anchored birthright citizenship is in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. In other words, it won’t be a sign that our confidence in the Court should be restored when they rule against Trump. The issue is so clear that it will simply be a reflection that there are some bars SCOTUS can’t fall below.
Yes, and ouch.
The DOJ issued a statement saying it’s sure the order is perfectly cromulent and will prevail when it reaches the Supremes, and Donald Trump said something stupid about the decision too, but we really don’t care, do U?
[AP / Civil Discourse / KUOW]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please become a paid subscriber, or if a one-time donation works better for you, here is the button for that! We won’t even check the immigration status of your US currency, even if it has an accent.
“There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, 'Where were the judges? Where were the lawyers?’”
That history was not so long ago.
"In other words, it won’t be a sign that our confidence in the Court should be restored when they rule against Trump. The issue is so clear that it will simply be a reflection that there are some bars SCOTUS can’t fall below."
I'll believe it when I see it happen. I don't trust this bag of Opus Dei wackos.