A contingent of House Judiciary Committee Republicans backed President Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship, filing a brief Monday in a lawsuit filed by four Democratic state attorneys general challenging the order.
Led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), 18 of the committee’s 25 Republicans signed onto the proposed friend-of-the-court brief, which must be accepted by the judge to be considered.
Trump on his first day in office signed an executive order narrowing birthright citizenship so that it doesn’t extend to children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status.
Eight lawsuits have since been filed challenging it as violating federal immigration law and the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment.
“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’ brief reads.
Over the next week, judges have scheduled four hearings in courtrooms across the country to consider blocking Trump’s order on a preliminary basis.
The lawmakers’ brief was filed in Seattle, where four Democratic-led states are suing. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, appointed by former President Reagan, will hold a hearing there Thursday.
Trump’s Justice Department has insisted his order is lawful, but the challengers note that the Supreme Court has long interpreted the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee to provide only few exceptions, primarily the children of diplomats and enemy invaders.
The lawmakers’ attorneys, which include the America First Legal Foundation, offered a 23-page history they claim supports the legality of Trump’s order. The theory hinges on language in the 14th Amendment that an individual must not just be born on U.S. soil, but also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to receive 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’ brief states.
