Die Vorgeschichte
Bisher haben die District Courts für den Western District des Bundesstaates Washington, für Massachusetts (1 und 2), New Hampshire und Maryland im US-Staatsangehörigkeits-Streit vorläufig gegen die Trump-Regierung entschieden. Es geht am Ende um die Frage, ob Trumps Executive Order vom 20. Januar 2025, in der es heißt:
„Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.“
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/)
mit Absatz 1 Satz 1 des XIV. Verfassungszusatzes der US-Verfassung vereinbar ist, der folgendermaßen lautet:
„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.“
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf, S. 16 [gedruckte Seitenzählung] bzw. 22 [digitale Seitenzählung])
„Alle Personen, die in den Vereinigten Staaten geboren oder eingebürgert sind und ihrer Gesetzeshoheit unterstehen, sind Bürger der Vereinigten Staaten und des Einzelstaates, in dem sie ihren Wohnsitz haben.“
(https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/gov/gov-constitutiond.pdf, S. 10)
Mit anderen Worten: Es geht am Ende um die Frage, ob Trumps Verordnung die Formulierung „subject to the jurisdiction“ korrekt interpretiert. Bisher geht es aber zunächst einmal nur um vorläufigen Rechtsschutz, wofür die Erfolgsaussichten in der Hauptsache nur eines von mehreren Entscheidungskriterien ist.
Heute kam es zur zweiten – demgemäß ebenfalls nur vorläufigen – Appeal Court-Entscheidung in der Angelegenheit. In beiden Verfahren wollte die Trump-Regierung nur erreichen, daß die Reichweite Entscheidungen der District Courts für die Dauer des Appeal-Verfahrens eingeschränkt wird. Die Erstgerichte (Western District des Bundesstaates Washington und Maryland) hatten Trumps Verordnung USA-weit vorläufig außer Vollzug gesetzt.
Am 19. Februar 2025 entschied der neunte Appeal Court, der u.a. für den Western District des Bundesstaates Washington zuständig ist, einstimmig, aber mit zwei unterschiedlichen Begründungen gegen die Trump-Regierung (siehe taz-Blogs vom 20.02.2025). Heute entschied der vierte Appeal Court, der u.a. für Maryland zuständig ist, mit 2 : 1 Stimmen gegen die Trump-Regierung.
Die heutige Mehrheits-Entscheidung
Die Argumente der Mehrheit lauten:
„We join the Ninth Circuit in finding that the government has not made a ’strong showing‘ that it is ‚likely to succeed on the merits‘ of its argument against universal injunctions. See Washington v. Trump, 2025 WL 553485, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434) (denying similar stay request).“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.177759/gov.uscourts.ca4.177759.29.0.pdf, S. 2 f. [Hyperlinks hinzugefügt]; wird bis S. 4 unten genauer begründet)
„Nor has the government shown that the equities favor the granting of a stay. For well over a century, the federal government has recognized the birthright citizenship of children born in this country to undocumented or non-permanent immigrants, a practice that was unchallenged until last month. The government has not shown that it will be harmed in any meaningful way if it continues to comply, for the pendency of its appeal, with that settled interpretation of the law and consistent executive branch practice. See Washington, 2025 WL 553485, at *2 (Forrest, J., concurring) (explaining that there is no ‚obvious‘ need for stay relief where ‚it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the Government has never been recognized by the judiciary, see United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1899), and where executive-branch interpretations before the challenged executive order was issued were contrary, see, e.g., Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Legislation Denying Citizenship at Birth to Certain Children Born in the United States, 19 O.L.C. 340, 340-47 (1995)‚)“
(ebd., S. 4 f.; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)
„Second, it is notable that the government is not prepared to argue that it will likely prevail on the merits of the Executive Order itself. We are aware of no case – and the government has not cited one – in which a court has stayed a preliminary injunction of a policy, already found likely unlawful, in which the movant did not argue for the policy’s legality.“
(ebd., S. 5 unten)
„Finally, we agree with the district court that the public interest favors its preliminary injunction. CASA, 2025 WL 408636, at *16 [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.65.0_1.pdf, S. 30]. It is hard to overstate the confusion and upheaval that will accompany any implementation of the Executive Order. Today, virtually every child born in the United States becomes a citizen at birth – allowing us to prove our citizenship with our birth certificates, which identify our place of birth but not the citizenship status of our parents.“
(ebd., S. 5 f.)
Die Mehrheit sind Richterin Pamla Ann Harris, 2014 von Obama nomiert, und Richter Roger L. Gregory („Received a recess appointment from William J. Clinton on December 27, 2000, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089; nominated to the same position by George W. Bush on May 9, 2001. Confirmed by the Senate on July 20, 2001, and received commission on July 25, 2001.“ [https://fjc.gov/history/judges/gregory-roger-l])
Die Auffassung des dissentierenden Richters
Der dissentierende Richter Paul Victor Niemeyer (von Reagan als District Court– und von George H.W. Bush als Appeal Court-Richter nominiert), stellt dagegen vor allem auf Folgendes ab:
„The government does not seek a stay with respect to the injunction’s provision of relief to the parties in this case. It 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.“
(ebd., S. 7)
„The majority’s order denying the government’s motion focuses almost all of its discussion to whether the government has satisfied the criteria for a stay outlined in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). That analysis prescribes a look at the merits of the case — even though they have not yet been briefed before us — to assess the government’s likelihood of success. But the merits are not before us, even for a quick look. At this stage, the government seeks only to restrict the scope of the preliminary injunction, which purports to cover every person and every district court in the country.“
(ebd., S. 7; Hv. i.O.; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)
„The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but it provided relief not only to the plaintiffs but also to everyone in the nation similarly situated by categorically enjoining the defendants from implementing and enforcing the Executive Order. The government has appealed, and the issue now is not whether the district court was correct in entering a preliminary injunction. 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.“
(ebd., S. 8)
„The judicial unseemliness of such a broad extension of judicial power is highlighted by the fact that within ‚these United States‘ — the coverage of the district court’s injunction — at least four cases in other United States District Courts are addressing similar challenges to Executive Order 14160. […]. It implicates unnecessarily potentially conflicting orders or reasoning, claims preclusion, res judicata, and other similar principles that order the work of different courts. Moreover, the orders in all four of these cases have been or will be appealed to the appropriate court of appeals, which are or will be considering the same issues that are presented to us here. As a matter of order and equity, it is simply presumptuous and jurisdictionally messy for one district court to issue an injunction that covers the jurisdiction of other district courts and courts of appeals, which are considering the same issues.“
(ebd., S. 9)
„While a broad injunction having de facto national effect might be appropriate in some circumstances, it is not so here, in my view. The specifically identified plaintiffs here claim harm that can only be redressed by injunctive relief, and the other district courts across the country are likewise addressing similar claims of harm.
At bottom, I would grant the partial stay requested, which is modest, and proceed to receive the briefs of the parties on the merits and hear oral argument in furtherance of our role to review the district court’s injunction on the merits.“
(ebd., S. 10)
Auch das scheint mir eine mindestens vertretbare Argumentation zu sein, die trotzdem für Trump keinen Anlaß für Hoffnung auf einen Erfolg in der Hauptsache gibt, sondern sich diesbzgl. einer Prognose enthält.
Chronologie der Verfahren
Zwei querformatige DIN A 3-Seiten als .pdf-Datei mit Hyperlinks zu den Schriftsätzen und Entscheidungen:
US-District- und Appeal [= Farben] Courts
