The court ruled that a nationwide injunction is the only way to provide complete relief to the state government plaintiffs in the case.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
Judge Bumatay objects on standing grounds, arguing that courts should not seek to offset narrowing one form of relief by expanding another: "That would be like squeezing one end of a balloon—it just pushes all the air to the other end."
This ruling was widely expected in the wake of the Supreme Court's decison barring nationwide injunctions.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
Today's Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions could empower the federal government to engage in large-scale violations of the Constitution. Exactly how bad the consequences will be depends on the extent to which other remedies can be used to forestall them.
Justice Barrett writes for the Court's majority that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable power of federal courts.
The 1866 debate over birthright citizenship included a debate over immigration.
Nationwide illegality by the federal government requires a nationwide remedy.
The president's executive order on birthright citizenship had its first test before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Inc. should rein in the district courts' use of nationwide injunctions.
Briefs urging the Supreme Court to stay injunctions against the order challenge "the conventional wisdom" about the meaning of an 1898 decision interpreting the 14th Amendment.
An important (and importantly civil) debate on birthright citizenship.
Links to all of his posts compiled.
Evan Bernick's fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts on birthright citizenship.
Evan Bernick's third in a series of guest-blogging posts on birthright citizenship.
Evan Bernick's second in a series of guest-blogging posts: Part II of a critique of an important defense of the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
Evan Bernick's first in a series of guest-blogging post: Part I of a critique of an important defense of the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
Bernick is a leading academic expert on the Fourteenth Amendment.
If ever a universal injunction makes sense, it's in a case like this.
Interestingly enough, the government focused its argument on standing, and did not defend the Executive Order on the merits.
If nationwide injunctions were okay against other administrations, the Fourth Circuit see no reason they are not okay now.
The first of what may be many appellate rulings on the Trump Administration's most controversial and questionable Executive Order.
Why their response to me and other critics fails to refute key objections.
Their argument for denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the US has multiple weaknesses, including that it would also have denied it to former slaves.
The two rulings highlight the weaknesses of Trump's legal position.
Federal judges in Washington and Maryland say the president's attack on birthright citizenship flouts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
Demographer Julia Gelatt of the Migration Policy Institute joins Just Asking Questions to discuss the likely effects of the president's executive orders on immigration.
The executive order contradicts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
Former Rep. Justin Amash explains why President Donald Trump's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is wrong.
The arguments are not new. The willingness of an Administration to act on them are.
“I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,” said Judge John C. Coughenour.
The TRO blocks the order for 14 days and is a sign that courts are highly skeptical of Trump's position.
It applies to children of large numbers of legal visa-holders, as well as those of undocumented immigrants.
Children could be denied citizenship even if their parents are here completely legally.
Legal scholars Amanda Frost and Paul Gowder have both published notable new articles on the subject.
The executive order that the president-elect plans to issue contradicts the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment.
My new Just Security article explains why denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants would be unconstitutional.
Both plans are an affront to America’s image as a nation of immigrants.
Some scholars and commentators argue that legacy preferences at public universities are unconstitutional because they are a form of hereditary privilege. If so, the same is likely true of the far more consequential hereditary privilege of citizenship that severely restricts the right to live and work in the United States.
In 2003, the prominent conservative Republican senator proposed an amendment that would have eliminated the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen."
The ridiculous controversy over Kamala Harris' eligibility to be Vice President reinforces the point.
The Trump administration is trying to make it harder for pregnant women to enter the country as tourists since they might give birth while here.
Their main purpose is to stick it to immigrants working for Uncle Sam overseas
Plus: Gillibrand ends presidential campaign, trouble for Forever 21, and more...
Why Hoda Muthana Can't Be Kept Out of the United States
President Trump's hardline immigration stances have made for some polarizing debates.
Why Trump cannot eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants by executive order.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
