Block On Trump Birthright Order Upheld — Over Trump Appointee’s Dissent

An injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order was upheld by an appeals court despite a dissent from Trump-appointed Judge Patrick Bumatay.

Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship during the first days of his second term, and last month won a major victory in the Supreme Court, which rolled back the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s order is unconstitutional and left in place a nationwide injunction on the order. From the Associated Press:

The ruling from a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump’s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit blocks the Trump administration from enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.

“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,” the majority wrote.

Judge Bumatay wrote in a 29-page partial concurrence and partial dissent that he believed the state do not have standing in the case:

I join Section III.B of the majority opinion in declining to reach the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims. As the majority observes, it appears that both Individual Plaintiffs have given birth, meaning their children are United States citizens—raising mootness concerns. It’s also a good call to avoid potential conflict with the overlapping class action pending in the District of New Hampshire. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 1979).

But in rigorously applying our standing doctrine, I conclude that State Plaintiffs have no standing at this time. Absent a party with Article III standing, it’s premature to address the merits of the citizenship question or the scope of the injunction.

I respectfully dissent in part.

Read the full decision here.