By Nate Raymond
(Reuters) -The constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to curtail automatic birthright citizenship is set to be considered by a U.S. appeals court for the first time on Wednesday, even as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs his administration’s request to let it begin to take effect.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration’s appeal of a judge’s ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president’s hardline immigration agenda.
Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump’s action “blatantly unconstitutional” and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump’s directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a “green card” holder.
The administration contends that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.
The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump’s action.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration’s bid to narrow the three injunctions.
Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump’s order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump’s directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump’s order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs.
Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women.
The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)
