西雅图的一名联邦法官周四签署了一项临时限制令，阻止唐纳德·特朗普总统的美国总统之行政命令关于出生公民权。
美国地区法官约翰·库格诺尔(John Coughenour)听取了四个民主党领导的州提出的针对特朗普签署的行政命令发布临时限制令的请求，该命令旨在限制出生公民权第14修正案长期以来一直保障父母中至少有一方是美国公民或永久居民的人。
1981年被罗纳德·里根总统提名为法官的库格诺尔法官说:“我已经当了40多年的法官了。”。“我不记得还有哪个案例提出的问题像这里这样清楚。这是公然违宪的命令。”
周四的裁决是对特朗普行政命令的第一次法律测试，该命令重新解释了第14修正案对出生公民权的保障，这是特朗普在竞选活动中长期承诺的。预计行政行动将引发一场漫长的法律挑战，可能会界定总统全面的移民议程。
"在你看来，这项行政命令符合宪法吗?"Coughenour法官在周四的听证会上问司法部律师Brett Shumate。
“是的，我们认为是，”舒马特说，引来了法官的斥责。
“我很难理解一名律师如何能够明确地说这是一种宪法秩序。这让我感到困惑，”库格诺尔说。"做出这个决定时，律师们在哪里?"
Shumate恳求Coughenour推迟阻止该命令，说它要到2月19日才生效。
舒马特说:“可以说，这项命令不会给各州带来迫在眉睫的伤害。”。“我们敦促法院今天不要根据案情发布任何临时命令。有意义的是对初步禁令有一个完整的简报。”
“在法院考虑这个案件时，出生不能暂停，”代表州检察长的律师莱恩·波洛佐拉说，他说特朗普的行政命令试图改变宪法的一部分，这一部分在一个世纪的法律先例中得到了解决。
Coughenour法官似乎被说服了，他在听证会结束时说，他签署了临时限制令，他将在未来几周内考虑是否批准长期禁令。
Coughenour的命令暂时禁止特朗普和任何联邦雇员在14天内执行或实施行政命令，直到2月6日，法官安排了一次听证会，考虑发布针对该命令的初步禁令。
“原告州还表明，在缺乏初步救济的情况下，他们可能会遭受不可挽回的伤害，”库格诺尔在限制令中写道，列举了起诉特朗普的四个州遇到的医疗保健、社会服务和行政工作的成本。
“平衡权益倾向于原告州和公众利益强烈支持进入临时救济，”命令说。
当被问及周四下午的裁决时，特朗普本人表示有信心。
“显然我们会上诉，”特朗普在椭圆形办公室说。"那个法官一点也不奇怪。"
“司法部将大力捍卫特朗普总统的总统令，该总统令正确解释了美国宪法第十四修正案，”司法部的一份声明说。“我们期待着向法院和美国人民提出一个完整的是非曲直的论点，他们迫切希望看到我们国家的法律得到执行。”
周四的裁决是对特朗普行政命令的第一次法律测试，该命令重新解释了第14修正案对出生公民权的保障，这是特朗普在竞选活动中长期承诺的。预计行政行动将引发一场漫长的法律挑战，可能会界定总统全面的移民议程。
来自22个州和两个城市的民主党司法部长已经起诉了特朗普总统面临至少五起独立的政策诉讼。
听证会后，华盛顿州司法部长尼克·布朗在接受美国广播公司新闻采访时表示，如果特朗普政府上诉到更高一级法院，他计划继续对抗行政命令。
“我不认为这就结束了，”布朗说。“首先，全国各地还有其他案件被提起，因此这些案件将继续向前发展，总统和本届政府肯定有继续这些斗争的倾向，所以我预计这将继续向前发展。”
Coughenour计划周四就亚利桑那州、俄勒冈州、华盛顿州和伊利诺伊州的总检察长提起的案件举行当面听证会。在周二提交的联邦诉状中，四名司法部长认为，特朗普的政策将非法剥夺每年至少15万名新生儿根据联邦法律和第14修正案享有的公民权。
“原告州也将遭受不可挽回的伤害，因为成千上万的儿童将在他们的边界内出生，但被剥夺了在美国社会的充分参与和机会，”诉讼称。“如果没有临时限制令，在原告州出生的儿童将很快成为无证儿童，受到驱逐或拘留，许多儿童将成为无国籍者。”
该诉讼认为，特朗普行政命令的执行将对无证父母所生的孩子造成不可挽回的伤害，因为他们无法享受“充分参与美国社会并获得机会”的权利。
“他们将失去投票、担任陪审团成员和竞选某些职位的权利，”诉状称。“作为美国新的下层阶级的一部分，他们将终身处于不稳定和不安全的境地。”
在新的领导下，司法部的律师周三在一份法庭文件中反对临时限制令的请求。
特朗普的行政命令计划于下月生效，旨在重新解释第14修正案对出生公民权的保障，认为无证母亲在美国出生的孩子不能获得公民权，除非他或她的父亲是公民或绿卡持有者。
虽然大多数国家根据父母授予孩子公民身份，但美国和包括加拿大和墨西哥在内的20多个国家遵循出生地原则或“土地权”。
内战后，美国通过第14修正案将出生地主义编入法典，否定了最高法院在Dred Scott v. Sanford一案中关于非裔美国人没有资格获得公民身份的裁决。
“特朗普总统和联邦政府现在寻求实施现代版的德雷德·斯科特。但是，宪法中没有任何内容授权总统、联邦机构或任何其他人对在美国出生的个人授予公民身份施加条件，”各州的诉讼称。
尽管《排华法案》限制来自中国的移民并禁止华裔美国人成为入籍公民，但最高法院在1898年发现中国移民在旧金山出生的儿子是美国公民，从而进一步确立了出生公民权。
通过寻求结束出生公民权，特朗普的行政命令以第14修正案中的同一短语为中心——“受其管辖”——最高法院在1898年考虑过。特朗普的行政命令认为，第14修正案的文本不包括父母不受美国“管辖”的儿童，例如非法居留在美国的人。
虽然法律学者对特朗普行政命令的合法性表示怀疑，但这起诉讼可能会为一场漫长的法律战奠定基础，这场法律战最终会在最高法院结束。
Judge temporarily blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'
A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump'sexecutive orderon birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour heard a request by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports tolimit birthright citizenship-- long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment -- to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
"I have been on the bench for over four decades," said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. "I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
Thursday's ruling was the first legal test of Trump's executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president's sweeping immigration agenda.
"In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?" Judge Coughenour asked Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate during Thursday's hearing.
"Yes, we think it is," Shumate said, drawing the judge's rebuke.
"I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind," Coughenour said. "Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?"
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
"It's enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order," Shumate said. "We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction."
"Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case," said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump's executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is "off limits" after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Coughenour's order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order for 14 days, until Feb. 6, when the judge scheduled a hearing to consider issuing a preliminary injunction against the order.
"The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," Coughenour wrote in the restraining order, citing the costs of medical care, social services, and administrative work encountered by the four states who sued Trump.
"The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief," the order said.
Trump himself signaled confidence when asked about the ruling Thursday afternoon.
"Obviously we will appeal it," Trump said in the Oval Office. "There's no surprises with that judge."
"The Department of Justice will vigorously defend President Trump's EO, which correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," said a statement from the Justice Department. "We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation's laws enforced."
Thursday's ruling was the first legal test of Trump's executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president's sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two citieshave sued Trumpover the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
"I don't think it ends here," Brown said. "First and foremost, there are other cases being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly has a propensity to keep these fights going, and so I anticipate that will happen moving forward."
Coughenour scheduled Thursday's in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump's policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
"The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society," the lawsuit says. "Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless."
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump's executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to "full participation and opportunity in American society."
"They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices," the complaint says. "And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States."
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Intended to take effect next month, Trump's executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child's citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil."
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court's finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
"President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States," the states' lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump's executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump's executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump's executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
