A contingent of Home Judiciary Committee Republicans backed President Trump’s order proscribing birthright citizenship, submitting a quick Monday in a lawsuit filed by 4 Democratic state attorneys normal difficult the order.
Led by Home Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), 18 of the committee’s 25 Republicans signed on to the friend-of-the-court transient.
Trump on his first day in workplace signed an government order narrowing birthright citizenship in order that it doesn’t prolong to youngsters born on U.S. soil to folks with out everlasting authorized standing.
Eight lawsuits have since been filed difficult it as violating federal immigration regulation and the long-held understanding of the 14th Modification.
“The touchstone for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment is allegiance to the United States, rather than merely being subject to its laws or some subset thereof,” the lawmakers’ transient reads.
Over the following week, judges have scheduled 4 hearings in courtrooms throughout the nation to contemplate blocking Trump’s order on a preliminary foundation.
The lawmakers’ transient was filed in Seattle, the place 4 Democratic-led states are suing. U.S. District Choose John Coughenour, appointed by former President Reagan, will maintain a listening to there Thursday.
Trump’s Justice Division has insisted his order is lawful, however the challengers be aware that the Supreme Courtroom has lengthy interpreted the 14th Modification’s birthright citizenship assure to supply solely few exceptions, primarily the kids of diplomats and enemy invaders.
The lawmakers’ attorneys, which embrace the America First Authorized Basis, provided a 23-page historical past they declare helps the legality of Trump’s order. The speculation hinges on language within the 14th Modification that a person should not simply be born on U.S. soil, but additionally be “topic to the jurisdiction thereof” to obtain birthright citizenship.
“That was intentional. And it invoked a term of art with a nuanced history and understanding, as explained above. But Plaintiffs never provide an answer for why the drafters did not use far simpler language if they meant only to invoke the simple concept of being subject to U.S. law,” the lawmakers’ transient states.
Up to date at 4:31 p.m. EST
