A federal appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request Wednesday evening to partially reinstate the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
The Justice Department requested that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals immediately limit a district judge’s ruling, one of several nationwide injunctions against Trump’s order, to only the individual plaintiffs who sued in the underlying case.
The three-judge appeals panel stated in its decision that the administration had “not made a’strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits’ of this appeal.”
Trump’s order, part of a slew of immigration actions he signed on his first day in office, would prevent birthright citizenship from being granted to children born on American soil to parents who do not have permanent legal status. Multiple judges have found that the order contradicts the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Wednesday’s ruling is the first time an appeals court has weighed in on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which has sparked ten lawsuits across the country. Though the case will continue in the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department may now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit panel included William Canby, an appointee of former President Carter; Milan Smith, an appointee of the younger former President Bush; and Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee.
Forrest wrote separately, emphasizing that the administration had not met the high bar for the court’s emergency intervention.
“Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not constitute an emergency. Yes, there is a controversy. Yes, there is an important controversy. Forrest wrote, “An emergency, not necessarily.”
She went on to warn judges against issuing such important rulings on an emergency basis, claiming that it contributes to low trust in the judiciary.
“When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise,” the lawyer wrote.
“In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system,” according to her.
“Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide (or pre-decide) cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice.”
The administration filed its appeal after a federal district judge in Seattle heard two lawsuits that blocked Trump’s order and accused him of undermining the rule of law. One case was filed by four Democratic state attorneys general, while the other was brought by a group of pregnant women without permanent legal status.
