As I understand the ruling, Federal District Court injunctions can now only be granted in the specific case of the party asking for it or, in the case of a class action suit, the members of that class. Is that correct? Even when the Court find that actions being prohibited are unconstitutional?
Suppose the District Court denies the injunction. An appeal may be filed with the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals. Is that right? That Court then finds in favor of the appellant, based on constitutional grounds.. Is the injunction limited to the specific case? In other words, do Court of Appeals decisions apply to just that District or all the Districts in that Circuit?
Hypothetically, the current administration issues an EO deeming that warrants and probable cause are not necessary for searching the cars of “birthright citizens” . A birthright citizen is arrested after such a search and his legal team requests dismissal of the charges and an injunction halting the practice. Fourth Amendment and all. If they win, the decision applies only to him? And the government elects not to appeal because an appellate or even USSC decision against the government would have far reaching application. Meanwhile, hundreds of other birthrighters are subject to the same rights violations. Maybe arrested, maybe not.
If the original case is lost at the District level, could the appeals court grant an emergency hearing if they saw blatant constitutional violations? How soon before different Circuits reach different conclusions and USSC hears a case. Too late to hundreds or thousands (or more) any good, I assume. Which is, maybe, the plan.
I’m pretty sue I’m gettinig some of this wrong so please "straight"en me out.
Apologies - I haven’t read the decision. But I’m unclear what mechanism would be preferable to the current one - with expedited appeals. Possibly directly to the Supremes.
Seems to clear the path for an administration to cause a heckuva lotta harm before it gets effectively addressed/corrected.
Yes. We’ve speculated over the last few years where the front lines in a new US Civil War might be drawn. I think this ruling may provide such a framework. If this ruling stands, and Trump issues other EOs that impact on people’s rights, you could end up with a patchwork quilt of overlapping rights. If you live here, you have right ABC, if you live there, you have rights BCD, and if you live that other place, you have rights CDE. Hilarity ensues.
It’s a work-around. It’s not clear that they actually have the power to deny citizenship, but merely issuing documents is an administrative task. Do you have a right to a passport? Well, you can be denied one in certain circumstances, and can be required to hand it over in other circumstances, so no.
So they don’t explicitly deny citizenship, they just make it impossible to do any of the the things citizens can do. Plus, it makes it harder to prove you’re a citizen when ICE comes calling. “No papers? Why not? Oh, ‘the government refused to give me any’? What a cop-out, you migrant scum!”
I am 99% sure that at least one court will side with the administration if it comes to that - even if only so they can’t manipulate things in the way you describe, where the government loses every case and chooses not to appeal.
What I’m wondering is how ending birthright citizenship would work in practice. A woman arrives at a hospital in labor and gives birth to a baby. Presumably the city/county/state issues a birth certificate whether or not the parents are documented or undocumented. But when and by whom is the determination made that the newborn is a US citizen by birth?
By the city/county/state issuing a certificate of live birth in a city/county/state of the United States.
With very limited exceptions (the children of foreign diplomats), all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Section 1. 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. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
When has something being settled stopped him from pursuing what he wants?
And the OP says
I’m interested in what the legal argument is that the Trump administration is using to justify ending birthright with an executive order vs. a constitutional amendment.
I looked it up in answer to another thread
According to 8 CFR 301.1, to be documented as a U.S. citizen you apply for a passport if in the United States and go to an embassy or consulate if outside the United States.
If naturalized you get a certificate stating you are a naturalized citizen.
I don’t know if it answers you question exactly since it is about documentation, not determination.
Okay, thanks but even a child born without birthright citizenship in thr United States would receive a birth certificate that shows US birth. So where is the determination made that the child is not eligible for a US passport?
See, it’s easy to say we’re going to deny birthright citizenship but harder to implement.
It’s not the Birth Certificate, it’s the Certificate of Live Birth (seen here) note the “BIRTHPLACE (State, Territory, or Foreign Country)” box for both the mother and father.