US appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time an appeals court has assessed the legality of Trump's order since the US Supreme Court in June curbed the power of lower court judges to enjoin that and other federal policies on a nationwide basis.
The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders.
But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it nationally again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy.
The 9th Circuit's majority in Wednesday's ruling said the Democratic-led states that had sued to block the policy - Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon - likewise still were entitled to a nationwide injunction as a narrower order would not provide them 'complete relief.'
'The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen,' Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. The Trump administration could either ask a wider panel of 9th Circuit judges to hear the case or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to have the final word in the litigation.
'We look forward to being vindicated on appeal,' said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. In a statement, she said the 9th Circuit misinterpreted the US Constitution's 14th Amendment in reaching its decision.
Day one order
Trump signed the order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his hardline approach toward immigration. Trump's order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder.
It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violates the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
The Constitution's 14th Amendment citizenship clause states that 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.'
The first judge to block Trump's directive was Seattle-based US District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who called it 'blatantly unconstitutional.' The 9th Circuit's ruling upheld his decision.
US Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for Wednesday's majority, said Coughenour rightly concluded that Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States. Gould said a geographically limited injunction would harm the four states by forcing them to overhaul their government benefits programs to account for how people denied citizenship under Trump's order might move into them.
'It is impossible to avoid this harm absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States,' Gould wrote.
His opinion was joined by US Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, a fellow appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton. US Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying in his view the Democratic-led states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order, as he warned of the risks of 'judicial overreach.' — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kuwait Times
5 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
What happens next in US court battle over Trump's tariffs?
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. What is the case about? The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. What's the status of the litigation? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. Will Trump's tariffs be blocked if he loses in court? A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. Is the Supreme Court likely to step in? The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. How might the supreme court rule? There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress. — Reuters
Kuwait Times
7 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
Sensible, steely: How Mexico's Sheinbaum has dealt with Trump
MEXICO CITY: A combination of tact and tenacity is credited for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum's successful dealings with US counterpart Donald Trump, most recently convincing him to delay a sky-high import tariff meant to come into effect Friday. The pair are known to get along despite sitting on opposite sides of the political aisle, earning Mexico's first woman president the epithet of 'Trump whisperer.' At least three times now, the US president has granted Mexico tariff relief and Trump has described Sheinbaum as a 'wonderful woman' to the envy of a host of other world leaders who have found exchanges with Trump can be tetchy. On Thursday, Trump agreed to delay by 90 days a 30 percent general tariff on imported Mexican goods, just hours before it was to take effect. It was the outcome of the ninth phone conversation between the two leaders since Trump returned to power in January with a strong rhetoric against undocumented migrants and fentanyl flowing from America's southern neighbor. How did she do it? 'With a cool head,' the president herself told reporters Friday. The 63-year-old physicist and dedicated leftist added that she avoids 'confronting' the magnate, all the while insisting on Mexico's sovereign rights in dealing with a man known to respect strong leaders. Sheinbaum has said that Mexicans should 'never bow our heads' and Trump has acknowledged her mettle, remarking: 'You're tough' in one phone call, according to The New York Times. 'Mexico represents a lot to the United States... they are aware of that,' Sheinbaum explained. Thanks to the USMCA free trade agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada, nearly 85 percent of Mexican exports have been tariff-free. And while a 30 percent general tariff has been delayed, for now, Mexico's vital automotive sector is the target of a 25 percent levy, albeit with discounts for parts manufactured in the United States. Its steel and aluminum sectors, like those of other countries, are subject to a 50 percent tariff. Mexico's government nevertheless claims the latest delay as a victory. 'Without being sycophantic, I can tell you that the way our president handles her conversations, her approach, the firmness with which she defends Mexico's interests, her ability to convince President Trump, is very significant,' Secretary of Economy Marcelo Ebrard, who leads trade negotiations, told reporters Thursday. Sheinbaum seems also to have adopted a give and take approach, deploying thousands of border troops to assuage Trump's concerns about migration and drug flows. The president insists she has 'not yielded anything' in negotiations with Trump, and talks are ongoing between the neighbors for a security agreement to tackle the problem of fentanyl and drug trafficking. Sheinbaum has also raised the possibility of importing more US products to reset the trade balance. Some fear the Mexican leader is merely buying time. The latest tariff delay 'does not solve the issue of uncertainty; we return to the starting point,' Diego Marroquin, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said. – AFP
Kuwait Times
7 hours ago
- Kuwait Times
Filmmakers try to cash in on India Pakistan battle
Indian filmmakers are locking up the rights to movie titles that can profit from the patriotism fanned by a four-day conflict with Pakistan, which killed more than 70 people. The nuclear-armed rivals exchanged artillery, drone and air strikes in May, after India blamed Pakistan for an armed attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The fighting came to an end when US President Donald Trump announced a surprise ceasefire. Now, some Bollywood filmmakers see an opportunity to cash in on the battle. India tagged its military action against Pakistan 'Operation Sindoor', the Hindi word for vermilion, which married Hindu women wear on their foreheads. The name was seen as a symbol of Delhi's determination to avenge those widowed in the April 22 attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam, which sparked the hostilities. Film studios have registered a slew of titles evoking the operation, including: 'Mission Sindoor', 'Sindoor: The Revenge', 'The Pahalgam Terror', and 'Sindoor Operation'. 'It's a story which needs to be told,' said director Vivek Agnihotri. 'If it was Hollywood, they would have made 10 films on this subject. People want to know what happened behind the scenes,' he told AFP. Agnihotri struck box office success with his 2022 release, 'The Kashmir Files', based on the mass flight of Hindus from Kashmir in the 1990s. (From left) Bollywood actors Anil Kapoor, Hrithik Roshan and Deepika Padukone attend a promotional event for their upcoming Indian Hindi-language action film 'Fighter' in Mumbai on January 23, 2024. A woman wearing a T-shirt featuring 'OPERATION SINDOOR' checks her mobile phone near a market area in Ludhiana on May 17, 2025. Indian actor Vicky Kaushal and bollywood actress Yami Gautam pose for photographs during the promotion of the upcoming film 'Uri' on the occasion of the Republic Day celebrations at the India-Pakistan Wagah border post, some 35 kms from Amritsar on January 26, 2019. Colored narratives The ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party gave that film a glowing endorsement, despite accusations that it aimed to stir up hatred against India's minority Muslims. Since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, some critics say Bollywood is increasingly promoting his government's ideology. Raja Sen, a film critic and screenwriter, said filmmakers felt emboldened by an amenable government. 'We tried to wage a war and then we quietened down when Mr Trump asked us to. So what is the valor here?' Sen told AFP of the Pakistan clashes. Anil Sharma, known for directing rabble-rousing movies, criticized the apparent rush to make films related to the Pahalgam attack. 'This is herd mentality... these are seasonal filmmakers, they have their constraints,' he said. 'I don't wait for an incident to happen and then make a film based on that. A subject should evoke feelings and only then cinema happens,' said Sharma. Sharma's historical action flick 'Gadar: Ek Prem Katha' (2001) and its sequel 'Gadar 2' (2023), both featuring Sunny Deol in lead roles, were big hits. In Bollywood, filmmakers often seek to time releases for national holidays like Independence Day, which are associated with heightened patriotic fervor. 'Fighter', featuring big stars Hrithik Roshan and Deepika Padukone, was released on the eve of India's Republic Day on January 25 last year. Anti-Muslim bias Though not a factual retelling, it drew heavily from India's 2019 airstrike on Pakistan's Balakot. The film received mixed-to-positive reviews but raked in $28 million in India, making it the fourth highest-grossing Hindi film of that year. This year, 'Chhaava', a drama based on the life of Sambhaji Maharaj, a ruler of the Maratha Empire, became the highest-grossing film so far this year. It also generated significant criticism for fueling anti-Muslim bias. 'This is at a time when cinema is aggressively painting Muslim kings and leaders in violent light,' said Sen. 'This is where those who are telling the stories need to be responsible about which stories they choose to tell.' Sen said filmmakers were reluctant to choose topics that are 'against the establishment'. 'If the public is flooded with dozens of films that are all trying to serve an agenda, without the other side allowed to make itself heard, then that propaganda and misinformation enters the public psyche,' he said. Acclaimed director Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra said true patriotism is promoting peace and harmony through the medium of cinema. Mehra's socio-political drama 'Rang De Basanti' (2006) won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film and was chosen as India's official entry for the Golden Globe Awards and the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. 'How we can arrive at peace and build a better society? How we can learn to love our neighbors?' he asked. 'For me that is patriotism.' – AFP
