Trump administration defends birthright citizenship order in court for first time

SEATTLE — Justice Department lawyers will appear in federal court Thursday to defend President Donald Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship — the first action in what promises to be a protracted legal battle over the program of the new administration.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour will hear arguments during the hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. PT, at the request of four states (Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon). to block the order before it was supposed to take effect. effect at the end of February. It is one of five lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights organizations challenging the order — which seeks to automatically limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and green card holders – as unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has long been seen as automatically granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats. In response to the 1857 Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that persons descended from slaves were not citizens, the amendment begins with the phrase: “All persons born or naturalized in United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. of the United States and the state in which they reside. »

“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott,” lawyers representing the four states wrote in a court filing. “But nothing in the Constitution grants the president, federal agencies, or anyone else the authority to impose conditions on the granting of citizenship to persons born in the United States.”

If implemented, Trump’s order would cause plaintiff states to lose federal funding that supports programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), lawyers say. In addition to “substantial financial losses,” states should immediately bear the burden of modifying their management of these programs to account for the change, the attorneys added.

“Absent a temporary removal order, children born in requesting states will soon be undocumented, subject to deportation or detention, and many of them will be stateless,” the lawyers continued. “They will be denied the right to travel freely and return to the United States. They will lose the ability to obtain a Social Security number (SSN) and work legally as they grow up. They will be denied the right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain positions. And they will be placed in positions of instability and insecurity as members of a new underclass created by the president in the United States. »

In their filings, Justice Department lawyers told Coughenour that the birthright citizenship order is “integral” to Trump’s efforts to “address this country’s broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

Not only does Trump have the authority to issue the order, they argue, but states lack standing to sue based on their alleged economic harm.

“A third party, including a state, has no legally cognizable interest in the federal government’s recognition of citizenship of a particular individual – let alone any economic benefits or burdens that are entirely collateral to citizenship status,” wrote Justice Department litigator Brad Rosenberg.

While most Justice Department filings focus on technical arguments for why states can’t sue, Rosenberg provides insight into some of the arguments that could come into play as this case and others move forward: How, according to the Justice Department, courts have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years.

“Ample historical evidence shows that the children of nonresident aliens are subject to foreign powers – and, therefore, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to legal citizenship ”wrote Rosenberg.

Coughenour, an appointee of 84-year-old Ronald Reagan, could rule immediately at Thursday’s hearing or issue a written order at a later date.

But any ruling in this case or any other lawsuit challenging this order will likely be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.