Attorneys general from 18 states sued President Trump on Tuesday to block an executive order refusing to recognize as citizens children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, the first salvo in what promises to be a long legal battle over state policies. immigration of the Trump administration.
The suit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, was joined by the cities of San Francisco and Washington, DC.
States view Mr. Trump’s attempt to limit birthright law as “extraordinary and extreme,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, who led the legal effort with the attorneys general of California and of Massachusetts. “Presidents are powerful, but he is not a king. He cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.”
On Monday, in the early hours of his second presidential term, Mr. Trump signed an order declaring that future children born to undocumented immigrants would no longer be treated as citizens. The order would even extend to children of certain mothers residing legally but temporarily in the country, such as foreign students or tourists.
Mr. Trump’s executive order asserts that the children of these non-citizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not covered by the long-standing constitutional guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
This order goes against more than 100 years of legal precedent, when courts and the executive branch have interpreted the 14th Amendment to guarantee citizenship to any baby born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of their parents . The courts have recognized only a narrow exception for the children of accredited diplomats.
But there are signs that the judiciary may be divided on the issue. Judge James C. Ho, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was more sympathetic to some of Mr. Trump’s arguments, comparing illegal immigrants to an invading army . That comparison was also made by lawyers for the state of Texas and another statement by Mr. Trump that illegal crossings at the southern border amounted to a “continuing invasion.”
Yet that appeals court is not hearing cases from Massachusetts, and other courts are unlikely to consider the Trump administration’s arguments on constitutional interpretation without a new law from Congress, a said Gerard Magliocca, professor at the Robert H. McKinney School at Indiana University. of Law. He cited recent cases in which the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch alone cannot resolve the biggest political controversies, known as “major issues.”
“If this is true for student loans or Covid-19 rules or whatever, you would think it would also be true for citizenship,” he said. “The states are right and the courts will likely agree with them. »
