What should be known about the decision blocking Trump’s order on citizenship linked to birth law

Seattle (AP) – Decree of President Donald Trump refuse American citizenship The children of parents of illegally living in the country has been confronted with the first of many legal tests. It did not go well.

A lawyer for the Ministry of Justice had barely started to present his arguments Thursday in a courtroom in Seattle than the American district judge John C. Coughenour began to bomb him with questions, calling for the decree. “Obviously unconstitutional”. Coughenour then temporarily blocked him while waiting for new arguments.

Here are some things to know about the decision and legal proceedings contesting Trump’s order.

What is birth citizenship?

Citizenship by birth law is the principle that a person born in a country is a citizen of this country. In the United States, this is registered in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which stipulates: “All people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside . It was ratified in 1868 to guarantee the citizenship of the former slaves after the civil war.

Unhindered immigration criticisms argued that this encourages people to come or to remain illegally in the United States: they know that if they have children in the United States, these children will become citizens, who could then ask to what they become legal. permanent residents.

In order to brake illegal immigration, Trump published the decree Just after taking oath for his second term on Monday. Trump’s order has aroused immediate judicial disputes throughout the country, with at least Five proceedings brought by 22 states and a number of immigrant rights defense groups. A trial brought by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois was the first to be heard.

What is the next step for judicial disputes?

The decision of the judge rendered on Thursday was a temporary ban order. He prevented the administration from applying or implementing Trump’s order on a national scale for the next 14 days. Over the next two weeks, the parties will present new information on the legal merits of the decree. Coughenour planned another hearing on February 6 to hear the arguments on the opportunity to issue a preliminary injunction, which would block the long -term decree while the case is progressing.

Meanwhile, other cases contesting the order are also underway.

The next audience will focus on a case brought in Maryland by Casa, a non -profit organization that supports children who have been mistreated or neglected with foster family. This is set for February 5 at the American District Court of Greenbelt.

Another trial, led by New Jersey in the name of 18 States, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, and a dispute brought in the Massachusetts by the Center of Brazilian workers have no planned audience.

In addition to contesting the constitutionality of the decree, the States claim that this decree would submit all the children concerned to the expulsion and would make many of them stateless. This would deprive them of their rights and make them incapable of participating in economic or civic life, states.

Why did the judge blocked Trump’s order?

Coughenour did not detail his reasoning during the hearing on Thursday, but his assertion according to which the order is “manifestly unconstitutional”, as well as the direct interrogation of the lawyer of the Doj Brett Shumate – and his lack of questions To the deputy prosecutor of Washington, Lane Polozola – suggested he subscribed to the arguments of the States.

The States claim that it is well established that the 14th amendment guarantees American citizenship and that the president does not have the power to determine who or not to obtain American citizenship at birth.

“I have been on the bench for more than four decades. I do not remember another case where the question asked was as clear as it is, “coughenour told Shumate.

The Ministry of Justice later declared in a statement that he “would vigorously defend” the presidential decree.

“We are impatient to present an argument on the merits at the court and the American people, who desperately wishes to see the laws of our applied country,” said the ministry.

Who is the judge?

Coughenour, 84, obtained his law degree from the Iowa University in 1966 and was appointed to the judiciary by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. He has been a federal judge for more than four decades; He took a semi-retired “senior status” but continues to hear business. He has the reputation of being a hard, independent and sometimes capricious lawyer.

Washington’s newly elected prosecutor general, Nick Brown – a former American prosecutor from Seattle – said Thursday’s hearing that he was not surprised by Coughenour’s reaction to the decree.

“I have already been before Judge Coughenour to personally see his frustration,” said Brown. “But I think the words he expressed and the seriousness he expressed really made it clear what we say. … it’s quite obvious. “

Among the thousands of cases treated by Coughenour, ranging from criminal law to environmental law, the most famous is probably that of the “millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam. Rentam was arrested when he entered the United States in December 1999 with an explosive trunk and planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport the day before the New Year.

Coughenour has several times encountered federal prosecutors during the conviction of Sentam, in disagreement on the credit that Sentam should receive for having cooperated with them after his conviction. Twice, Coughenour has sentenced Sentam to 22 years in prison-much less than what the prosecutors demanded-and twice, the 9th Court of Appeal of the United States canceled it.

Coughenour finally condemned Sentam to 37 years old In 2012. At the time, he said that the case of Sentam was the only one he could think of and in which the Court of Appeal had deemed him too indulgent.

___

Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.