Federal appeals court declines Donald Trump’s request to reinstate birthright citizenship order

 

A federal appeals court on Wednesday evening rejected the Trump administration’s request to partially reinstate an executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

 

The Justice Department had petitioned the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to narrow a district judge’s nationwide injunction on the order, limiting it only to the individuals who sued in the underlying case. However, a three-judge panel ruled against the administration, stating that it had “not made a ‘strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits’ of this appeal.”

 

Trump’s executive order sought to restrict birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status. The measure was part of a broader set of immigration actions he signed on his first day in office. Multiple judges have since blocked the order, arguing that it contradicts the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

The ruling marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which has been challenged in 10 lawsuits across the country. While the case will continue before the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department could now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

 

The 9th Circuit panel included Judge William Canby, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter; Judge Milan Smith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush; and Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee.

 

In a separate opinion, Forrest emphasized that the administration had not met the high legal standard for emergency intervention.

 

“And just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make. A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily,” Forrest wrote.

 

She also warned against courts making weighty decisions on an emergency basis, arguing that it contributes to public distrust in the judiciary.

 

“When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise,” she wrote.

 

The administration had filed its appeal after a federal district judge in Seattle blocked Trump’s order, accusing him of undermining the rule of law. The lawsuits challenging the order were brought by four Democratic state attorneys general and several pregnant mothers without permanent legal status.