The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a block on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order on Wednesday, concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in demonstrating that the executive order is unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit has now become the first appeals court to weigh in on the birthright citizenship order. The case was brought by three expecting mothers who were worried their children would be born without citizenship in any country, and they were joined by four states. The case was first brought before Seattle District Judge John C. Coughenour, who found the order unconstitutional. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order from being enforced, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA left open the possibility for courts to issue universal injunctions if doing so would be a plaintiff’s only way to obtain “complete relief.”
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that Judge Coughenour did not have legal authority to issue a preliminary injunction and that the “complete relief” exception did not apply. In the Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 majority opinion, Judges Micheal Hawkins and Ronald Gould upheld the injunction, stating:
Because the Individual Plaintiffs are covered by a certified class action in another federal court, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over their claims and dismiss them. But because State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed in demonstrating that the Executive Order is unconstitutional, we affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and its determination that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to give the States complete relief on their claims.
The opinion concludes by stating their agreement with Judge Coughenour that this order is unconstitutional, as it is contrary to Article II and “contrary to justice.”
The order, signed by President Trump on his first day in office, denies citizenship to those born in the US, but to parents who are both in the country illegally or temporarily.
This issue became more complicated after the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, in which the Supreme Court limited the federal courts’ ability to issue universal injunctions. The Supreme Court did leave open the possibility of filing a class action lawsuit on the issue, and left the injunction option open for those for whom an injunction would be the only way to achieve “complete relief” for plaintiffs.
Since that Supreme Court ruling, the issue was taken up by New Hampshire Judge Joseph N. Laplante, who, in a class action lawsuit brought by a petitioner group of civil rights groups attempting to block the order, found that the order was unconstitutional and enjoined multiple federal agencies from enforcing the order.
Judge Patrict Bumatay dissented with the current decision, stating: “We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of ‘complete relief’ isn’t a backdoor to universal injunctions.” He did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the order.
