I.

Die vierseitige Entscheidung als .pdf-Datei:

http://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/files/2025/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.343943.43.0_3.pdf (4 Seiten).

II.

Der bisherige Verfahrensgang:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/state-of-washington-v-trump/.

III.

So geht es weiter:

„To that end, the Court issues the following schedule for a preliminary injunction: Plaintiffs‘ motion for a preliminary injunction shall be filed on or before Monday, 1/27/2025. The Government’s response is due on or before Friday, 1/31/2025. Plaintiffs‘ reply is due on or before Tuesday, 2/4/2025. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for Thursday, 2/6/2025, at 10:00 AM. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour.“
(https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/state-of-washington-v-trump/#entry-44)

IV.

Absatz 1 Satz 1 des 14. Zusatzes zur US-Verfassung:

„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)

V.

Der 85-seitige Schriftsatz von Dienstag, den 21.01.2025, mit dem das Verfahren begann:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.1.0_1.pdf (85 Seiten; 19 MB).

(Es scheint noch keine Erwiderung zu geben; vgl. aber unten VII.)

VI.

1.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf (die S. 694 – 699 der gedruckten Seitenzählung sind die Seiten 46 – 51 der Datei).

2.

a) Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Cal. 1942)

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1465947/regan-v-king/; dort heißt es u.a.:

„This case is exceptional because the sole question it presents to this court is one which has been definitely decided by the United States Supreme Court: Is a person of the Japanese race, born within the United States, a citizen? The question has been answered in the affirmative in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S.Ct. 281, 78 L.Ed. 664; and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320.
Counsel for plaintiff frankly stated that he was asking this court to overrule the leading case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, because he believed the decision was erroneous. Since the decision was rendered it has been twice cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. California, supra, and in Perkins v. Elg, supra. In the Morrison case Justice Cardozo, speaking for the Court, said [291 U.S. 82, 54 S.Ct. 283, 78 L.Ed. 664]: ‚A person of the Japanese race is a citizen of the United States if he was born within the United States.‘ In the Perkins case, Chief Justice Hughes delivering the opinion, it was held that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.“

b) Regan v. King, 134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943)

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6988159/regan-v-king/; besteht ausschließlich aus folgendem Satz:

„On the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, § 1, making all persons born in the United States citizens thereof, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, and a long line of decisions, including the recent decision in Perkins, Secretary of Labor et al. v. Elg., 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320, the judgment of dismissal, 49 F.Supp. 222, is affirmed.“

c) REGAN V. KING, REGISTRAR. May 17, 1943. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep319/usrep319decisionsdenying/usrep319decisionsdenying.pdf (S. 753 der gedruckten Seitenzählung ist S. 14 der Datei; siehe dort Nr. 986).

4.

a) Links zu weiteren zitierten Entscheidungen:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/authorities/state-of-washington-v-trump/

b) Supreme Court-Entscheidungen

aa) Bis 2013 (bereits gedruckt):

https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-reports/about-this-collection/united-states-reports-by-volume/

bb) 1991 – 2019 (teilweise bisher nur preprints):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/USReports.aspx

cc) Die allerneusten Entscheidungen:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24.

VII.

1.

Der 32-seitige Antrag, dem stattgegeben wurde:

http://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/files/2025/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.343943.10.0_1.pdf.

„the Citizenship Clause’s only requirements are that an individual be born ‚in the United States‘ and ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof.‘ The only individuals excluded are those who are not in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth—the children of diplomats covered by diplomatic immunity and children born to foreign armies at war against the United States while on United States soil. Not excepted are children born in the United States, even if their parents are undocumented. They must comply with U.S. law; so too must their parents. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, must register for the Selective Service, and must otherwise follow—and are protected by—the law just like anyone else within the United States’ territorial sweep.“
(Seite 9 f. bzw. 15 f.)

2.

Die 17-seitige Replik der Regierung auf den Antrag:

http://blogs.taz.de/theorie-praxis/files/2025/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.343943.36.0_1.pdf.

„Among the many reasons why Plaintiffs’ position is incorrect, the term ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof‘ in the Fourteenth Amendment harks to tandem language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Act and the Amendment coterminously, explaining that the Act served as the ‚initial blueprint‘ for the Amendment, Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389 (1982), and that the Amendment in turn ‚provide[d] a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out‘ in the Act, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 775 (2010). The Act provided, as relevant here, that ‚all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.‘ § 1, 14 Stat. at 27 (emphasis added). The phrase ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof‘ in the Fourteenth Amendment is best read to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act—i.e., those who are ’subject to any foreign power‘ and ‚Indians not taxed‘.“
(Seite 11)

IIX.

Trumps Executive Order „Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship“

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/.