内容摘要：Jessica Damiano writes weekly gardening columns for the AP and publishes the award-winning Weekly Dirt Newsletter. You can sign up

Jessica Damiano writes weekly gardening columns for the AP and publishes the award-winning Weekly Dirt Newsletter. You can sign up

The children targeted by Trump’s order don’t fit into any of the exceptions the high court recognized in 1898, Indian tribes, foreign diplomats or occupying forces. “They are children whose citizenship by birth has been recognized in this country since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. When the children described in the Executive Order are born, they will be United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment and long-standing Supreme Court precedent. The President does not have the authority to strip them of their constitutional right to citizenship by birth,” she wrote.Boardman also explained why she issued a nationwide injunction. One of the groups that sued, ASAP, has more than 680,000 members. “Because ASAP’s members reside in every state and hundreds of them expect to give birth soon, a nationwide injunction is the only way ‘to provide complete relief’ to them,” she wrote. “It also is necessary because the policy concerns citizenship—a national concern that demands a uniform policy.”

In New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocked the citizenship order only in the state. “The court need not presume the Executive Order’s constitutionality. ‘A legislative enactment carries with it a presumption of constitutionality.’ The defense has not argued, or cited binding or persuasive authority, that executive orders enjoy a similar presumption, and the court does not know of any,” Laplante wrote.In the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee, wrote to explain why she voted against an emergency stay of Coughenour’s ruling. “To constitute an emergency under our Rules, the Government must show that its inability to implement the specific policy at issue creates a serious risk of irreparable harm within 21 days,” Forrest wrote. “The Government has not made that showing here. Nor do the circumstances themselves demonstrate an obvious emergency where it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the Government has never been recognized by the judiciary and where executive-branch interpretations before the challenged executive order was issued were contrary.”In the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge David Barron wrote for a unanimous panel. “The Government expressly declines to make any developed argument that it is likely to succeed on appeal in showing that the Executive Order is either constitutional or compliant with” federal law, Barron wrote.

The three-judge panel in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 2-1 to deny the administration’s emergency appeal, focused on nationwide, or universal, injunctions. “We are of course aware of separate writings by Supreme Court Justices, emphasized by the government, that express concerns about the propriety of universal injunctions and an interest in taking up that question. But notwithstanding these reservations, the Supreme Court has allowed most universal injunctions to remain in effect during the course of litigation, even in cases in which the Court has ultimately reversed on the merits,” Judges Pam Harris and Roger Gregory wrote. “No decision of the Supreme Court has superseded our precedent in this area, and we have no reason to think the Court will soon announce a change in course.”They also forecast “confusion and upheaval” if the restrictions were allowed to take effect. “Even for children born to two citizen parents, a standard birth certificate will no longer suffice to prove citizenship – not under the Executive Order, and not for any other purpose. Existing administrative systems will fail, states and localities will bear the costs of developing new systems for issuing birth certificates and verifying citizenship, and anxious parents-to-be will be caught in the middle.”

In dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote that administration “only seeks to stay the effort by the district court to impose its injunction nationwide to afford relief to persons beyond the District of Maryland.”

The legality of the Trump order was not before the court, Niemeyer wrote. “Rather, it is whether the court was entitled, in the circumstances of this case, to extend its injunction to apply ‘throughout these United States’ — to persons not before the court nor identified by the court. I would grant the government’s modest motion, which seeks only to cabin the order’s inappropriate reach,” he wrote.“I think in this political space, unfortunately, that is quite unlikely,” she said. “Problems that have been differently named — algorithmic discrimination or algorithmic bias on the one hand, and ideological bias on the other —- will be regrettably seen us as two different problems.”

MEXICO CITY (AP) — A global human rights watchdog on Wednesday urged the United States and other governments to bolster their support for people seeking democratic change in Venezuela and to hold President Nicolás Maduro accountable for the crackdown on dissent he intensified after the country’s presidential election last year.Human Rights Watch specifically called on the U.S. to

and members of state security forces. HRW also called for sanctions on ruling party-loyal armed groups linked to the widespread rights violations that followed the July 28 vote that Maduro claims to have won despite credible evidence to the contrary.At the same time, the organization recommended the U.S. rescind an executive order President Donald Trump signed in February imposing