What to know about the ruling that blocks Trump's executive order on U.S. citizenship rights

1.3K

SEATTLE - President Donald Trump's executive order denying U.S. citizenship to children of parents living in the country illegally faces the first of many legal tests. It didn't go well.

The Justice Department lawyer had barely begun to present his arguments in a Seattle courtroom Thursday when U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour began peppering him with questions, calling the executive order "patently unconstitutional." Coughenour further temporarily blocked it until further arguments could be made.

Here is some information about the rulings and lawsuits challenging Trump's order

What is the right to citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the principle that anyone born in a country is a citizen of that country. In the United States, this is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It was ratified in 1868 to provide citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War.

Critics of unrestricted immigration say it encourages people to come to or stay in the U.S. illegally: they know that if they have children in the U.S., those children will be citizens who can later apply for permanent residency on their behalf.

In an effort to curb illegal immigration, Trump issued the order just after he was sworn in for his second term on Monday. Trump's order sparked immediate legal challenges across the country - 22 states and a number of immigrant rights groups filed at least five lawsuits. The first lawsuit to be heard was filed by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois.¨

What's next for legal challenges?
Thursday's ruling by the judge was a temporary injunction. It blocked the administration from enforcing or implementing Trump's order nationwide for the next 14 days. Over the next two weeks, the parties will submit additional briefing on the legal merits of the executive order. Coughenour has scheduled another hearing for Feb. 6 to hear arguments on issuing a preliminary injunction that would block the executive order for a long time while the case proceeds.

In the meantime, some other cases challenging the injunction are unfolding.

Another hearing is being held in a case filed in Maryland by CASA, a nonprofit organization that supports children abused or neglected in foster care. It is scheduled for February 5 in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

Another lawsuit, filed by New Jersey on behalf of 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, and a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by the Brazilian Worker Center, have not yet had hearings ordered.

In addition to arguing against the constitutionality of the executive order, the states contend that the order would subject all of the children involved to deportation and render many of them stateless. The states argue that it would deprive them of their rights and prevent them from participating in economic and civic life.

Why did the judge block Trump's order?
Coughenour did not specify his reasons during Thursday's hearing, but his assertion that the order is "patently unconstitutional," as well as direct questions to Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate - and the lack of questions to Washington Assistant Attorney General Lane Polozola - suggest he agrees with the states' arguments.

The States argue that it is well established that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship by birth and that the President has no authority to determine who should or should not be granted U.S. citizenship by birth.

"I have been in the courtroom for over forty years. I can't recall another case where the question presented was as clear as in this case," Coughenour Shumate said.

The Justice Department later said in a statement that it would "vigorously defend" the president's decree.

"We look forward to presenting a full argument to the court and to the American people who are desperate to enforce our nation's laws," the department said.

Who's the judge?
The 87-year-old Coughenour earned his law degree from the University of Iowa in 1966 and was appointed a judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. He has been a federal judge for more than forty years; he moved to "senior" status mid-term but continues to hear cases. He has a reputation as a tough, independent, and sometimes cantankerous jurist.

Newly elected Washington Attorney General Nick Brown - a former Seattle prosecutor - said after Thursday's hearing that he was not surprised by Coughenour's reaction to the "absurdity" of the executive order.

"I've been before Judge Coughenour before to see his frustration in person," Brown said. "But I think the words he expressed and the seriousness he expressed really just confirmed what we were saying. ... It's pretty obvious."

Of the thousands of cases Coughenour has handled, covering everything from criminal law to environmental law, the case of the "millennial assassin" Ahmed Ressam was probably the most famous. Ressam was arrested upon entering the US in December 1999 with a suitcase full of explosives and a plan to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve.

Coughenour clashed repeatedly with federal prosecutors during Ressam's sentencing, disagreeing about how much credit Ressam should get for cooperating with them after his conviction. Twice, Coughenour sentenced Ressam to 22 years - far less than prosecutors sought - and twice the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it.

Coughenour eventually sentenced Ressam to 37 years in 2012. At the time, he said Ressam's case was the only one he could recall in which the appeals court found it too lenient.

apnews.com / gnews.cz-jav