Two Injunctions Against Trump’s Citizenship Decree Expose the Weakness of His Arguments
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that purported to qualify birthright citizenship by limiting it to the children of citizens or lawful permanent residents. That decree, which contradicted the text of the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent, ran into legal trouble three days later, when John Coughenour, a federal judge in Washington, blocked it with a temporary restraining order. It hit two more roadblocks this week.
On Wednesday, Deborah Boardman, a federal judge in Maryland, issued a preliminary injunction against Trump’s order. The next day, so did Coughenour. Although Boardman was appointed by a Democrat (Joe Biden) and Coughenour by a Republican (Ronald Reagan), their reasoning is essentially the same, and it underlines the weakness of the legal arguments that Trump has deployed in defense of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by executive fiat.
The 14th Amendment says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are “citizens of the United States.” Trump argues that children of unauthorized residents or legal but temporary visitors are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because their parents are not “domiciled” in the United States and owe “allegiance” to foreign governments.
The first difficulty with that argument is it has no basis in the text of the 14th Amendment. “In interpreting the text of the Constitution,” Coughenour notes, quoting the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, courts are “guided by the principle that ‘[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.'”
The Trump administration “insinuates that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ conditions citizenship upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,” Coughenour writes. “But the text of the phrase requires no such exclusivity; it requires only that the person born in the United States be subject to it.”
The government “also contends that whether a person born in the territorial United States is ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ ultimately turns on the legal status of the person’s parents and their allegiance to and domicile in this country,” Coughenour notes. “But the words ‘allegiance’ and ‘domicile’ do not appear i
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
