Ellanjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2018
- Messages
- 58
Lawsuits Against Trump Actions Could Help Clarify Scope of Executive Power
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing a series of executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on Jan. 23, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Sam Dorman
By Sam Dorman
2/11/2025
Updated:
2/11/2025
News Analysis
President Donald Trump’s administration has been hit with a wave of legal challenges responding to executive orders and other actions, teeing up potential Supreme Court decisions that could clarify the scope of executive power.
So far, states and other groups have filed more than 20 lawsuits alleging violations of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other laws. It’s unclear how many of them will succeed in the long-run but many have already attained initial successes in blocking the administration, with federal judges across the country issuing injunctions.
“He’s testing to see what works and what doesn’t,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times.
Steven Engel, who served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) during Trump’s first term, disagreed.
“I think President Trump came in with a plan and a muscular view of executive authority,” he said. Engel added that he believes some of Trump’s “decisions will lead to cases that better articulate the scope of executive power.”
Perhaps Trump’s most ambitious orders were the ones attempting to freeze wide swaths of government spending and end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a longstanding practice that the administration says is out of step with the 14th Amendment.
The amendment states in part: “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.”
There have already been three preliminary injunctions issued in response to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship. Experts told The Epoch Times that the issue, and a dispute over Trump firing one of the members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), will likely provoke consideration from the nation’s highest court.
Referring to the birthright citizenship order, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Joe Luppino-Esposito said: “That’s definitely the one that I think will make it to the Supreme Court because ... that’s not a question that’s come up in a long time, and it’s definitely more unique.”
Immigration
On Feb. 6, a federal judge in Washington accused Trump of trying to change the Constitution via executive order and said a new amendment would be needed to replace how birthright citizenship has typically been granted.
During that hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued that the history of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark supported the idea that immigrants should have more permanent ties to the nation in order for their kids to receive citizenship. The implications of that 1898 decision have been debated but the court held that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States.
Trump’s order, signed on Jan. 20, argued that an individual who is born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of his or her birth.
It further stated that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.
Rahmani speculated that “even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court will probably reject [the] argument“ that babies born illegally in the United States are not subject to its jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment. ”Maybe with the exception of [Justices Clarence] Thomas or [Samuel] Alito,” he assessed.
Immigration Reform Law Institute Director Chris Hajec told The Epoch Times that the issue offered the Supreme Court the opportunity to affirm what he saw as the true ruling of Wong Kim Ark.
....[see attached PDF for more]
Zachary Stieber and Bill Pan contributed to this report.
Sam Dorman
Sam Dorman
Washington Correspondent
Sam Dorman is a Washington correspondent covering courts and politics for The Epoch Times. You can follow him on X at @EpochofDorman.
America The Land of Freedom (Audio)[for desktop browsers except Opera/Safari]
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing a series of executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on Jan. 23, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Sam Dorman
By Sam Dorman
2/11/2025
Updated:
2/11/2025
News Analysis
President Donald Trump’s administration has been hit with a wave of legal challenges responding to executive orders and other actions, teeing up potential Supreme Court decisions that could clarify the scope of executive power.
So far, states and other groups have filed more than 20 lawsuits alleging violations of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other laws. It’s unclear how many of them will succeed in the long-run but many have already attained initial successes in blocking the administration, with federal judges across the country issuing injunctions.
“He’s testing to see what works and what doesn’t,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times.
Steven Engel, who served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) during Trump’s first term, disagreed.
“I think President Trump came in with a plan and a muscular view of executive authority,” he said. Engel added that he believes some of Trump’s “decisions will lead to cases that better articulate the scope of executive power.”
Perhaps Trump’s most ambitious orders were the ones attempting to freeze wide swaths of government spending and end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a longstanding practice that the administration says is out of step with the 14th Amendment.
The amendment states in part: “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.”
There have already been three preliminary injunctions issued in response to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship. Experts told The Epoch Times that the issue, and a dispute over Trump firing one of the members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), will likely provoke consideration from the nation’s highest court.
Referring to the birthright citizenship order, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Joe Luppino-Esposito said: “That’s definitely the one that I think will make it to the Supreme Court because ... that’s not a question that’s come up in a long time, and it’s definitely more unique.”
Immigration
On Feb. 6, a federal judge in Washington accused Trump of trying to change the Constitution via executive order and said a new amendment would be needed to replace how birthright citizenship has typically been granted.
During that hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued that the history of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark supported the idea that immigrants should have more permanent ties to the nation in order for their kids to receive citizenship. The implications of that 1898 decision have been debated but the court held that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States.
Trump’s order, signed on Jan. 20, argued that an individual who is born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of his or her birth.
It further stated that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.
Rahmani speculated that “even the conservative justices on the Supreme Court will probably reject [the] argument“ that babies born illegally in the United States are not subject to its jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment. ”Maybe with the exception of [Justices Clarence] Thomas or [Samuel] Alito,” he assessed.
Immigration Reform Law Institute Director Chris Hajec told The Epoch Times that the issue offered the Supreme Court the opportunity to affirm what he saw as the true ruling of Wong Kim Ark.
....[see attached PDF for more]
Zachary Stieber and Bill Pan contributed to this report.
Sam Dorman
Sam Dorman
Washington Correspondent
Sam Dorman is a Washington correspondent covering courts and politics for The Epoch Times. You can follow him on X at @EpochofDorman.
America The Land of Freedom (Audio)[for desktop browsers except Opera/Safari]
![hearty-laugh[1].gif](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/19/19141-bf516f8715bb95197849d24fc8891096.jpg?hash=QvNDO8VTk1 "hearty-laugh[1].gif")
![Blackadder-the-third-blackadder-11211221-500-339[1].webp](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/19/19179-858309de9785c6bfd30da1ab2a402375.jpg?hash=C3ju-v8hea "Blackadder-the-third-blackadder-11211221-500-339[1].webp")
![relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon[1].gif](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/19/19196-2dc860950ebd74af992223ea909ae65c.jpg?hash=WBqjrfX9jP "relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon[1].gif")
