Source: courthousenews.com 7/23/25
The panel found a nationwide injunction of the executive order doesn’t run afoul of a recent Supreme Court decision that lower courts shouldn’t issue blanket blocks on the president’s orders.
A Ninth Circuit panel on Wednesday upheld a federal judge’s nationwide preliminary injunction of President Donald Trump’s Day 1 executive order that denied citizenship to children who are born in the U.S. but whose parents are unlawfully or only temporarily in the country.
In a split decision, the panel found the four states that brought the lawsuit — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — had standing to challenge the executive order and that a nationwide injunction isn’t barred by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which without deciding the constitutionality of Trump’s limitation of birthright citizenship, found that lower courts couldn’t issue universal injunctions of the president’s order.
“The president has the power to issue executive orders if they stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself on matters that fall within that scope established by Article II,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the majority. “But one power that the president was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution.”
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, also a Clinton appointee, joined Gould in upholding the injunction.
They agreed in the first place that the four states suing the Trump administration had standing, because they claim the executive order would cause them economic injury by defunding and requiring substantial changes to existing public programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program among others.
The states provided evidence that more than 1100 infants born each month in their jurisdictions would be subject to the executive order, and, if those infants are denied citizenship, they will be ineligible for these federally backed state-run programs.
“For that reason, the states would suffer the same irreparable harms under…
OK, Janice, What ya gonna do with that? LOL
We always forget that the courts don’t give 2 craps about people.
They are commercial courts that operate on $$$…
Murder, suicide, or burdens of registrants and their families will gain no sympathy in the dark, soulless realm of the courts.
Cha-Ching is their thing.
Over a million people are disabled by the duties and restrictions forced upon them, which extends in many ways to their families, causing them to be unable to generate revenue.
These are a burden to society that costs the government (tax payers) billions, maybe even trillions, every year through not only the welfare system, which wouldn’t be necessary if they could live and work like every other member of the public, but also all the programs and agencies created to deal with this “new class” of people.
You know who I mean – the Frightening and High Lie class.
Trillions wasted on a lie! WOW!
What a scam perpetrated on the entire nation!
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse at its finest!
money money money = standing!
This is a sigh of relief for all who were concerned about the PLF case and the related injunction where sanity has been restored here as I read it.
“the four states suing the Trump administration had standing, because they claim the executive order would cause them economic injury by defunding and requiring substantial changes to existing public programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, among others.
The states provided evidence that more than 1100 infants born each month in their jurisdictions would be subject to the executive order, and, if those infants are denied citizenship, they will be ineligible for these federally backed state-run programs.”
How many PFR are ineligible for federally backed state-run programs?
Along with their families, by extension, all who have “a lawful, qualifying immigration status”? Or do they?
Do registrants also have a “reduced expectancy” to ALL their civil protections, after the fact, based on their status as if they were illegals? Or, more so?
split decision. what does that tell ya……..