Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I had never even heard of the issue until Obama.

That is simply because Obama is the first black President.

Your racebaiting is not wanted in this thread.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So far, those who have raised the question regarding the definition of 'natural born Citizen' with the courts, during the last eight years, have been found to not have standing to pursue the answer.

Very wrong, actually.

For example have a look at Ankeny v. Daniels.

I have spent a lot of time reading about this issue, over the last eight years,

Yet you missed all the cases where they had standing....

To put it another way, someone born 'on the soil' of two citizen parents is a natural born U.S. citizen,

So someone born from a widowed mother cannot be a natural born citizen...

If he is not a natural born citizen,

Except he is, as the courts have declared!

Like many people, I just want the issue laid to rest no matter the outcome.

It has been laid to rest, but some people refuse to accept that fact!

"So someone born from a widowed mother cannot be a natural born citizen... "

I have no desire to get mixed up in this debate but I had to comment that I found this argument, statement absolutely asinine.

My link to your comment didn't link properly but that is not relevent.

Nevertheless, the ONLY reason this is an issue is because some people want to use it as a potential way to disqualify a candidate they don't like. It has no real substance. It's splitting hairs, counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. That doesn't mean a lot of people won't put a substantial amount of effort into it, but let's not pretend this is simply because of some lofty idea that they want to "clarify the issue."

What they want is to disqualify Cruz the same way the "birthers" wanted to disqualify Obama.

originally posted by: schuyler
Nevertheless, the ONLY reason this is an issue is because some people want to use it as a potential way to disqualify a candidate they don't like. It has no real substance. It's splitting hairs, counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. That doesn't mean a lot of people won't put a substantial amount of effort into it, but let's not pretend this is simply because of some lofty idea that they want to "clarify the issue."

What they want is to disqualify Cruz the same way the "birthers" wanted to disqualify Obama.

Disagree. I think there was a good reason the drafters included it in the Constitution. I know tyranny seems like a non-threat, but I am beginning to believe the drafters realized there is a shelf-life to our constitutional protections. By that I mean that they knew eventually some enemy of the nation would find a way to subvert their intent.

For the record, I am a registered independent. It is true, I cannot stand any of the candidates that either party has offered up and I wonder why they keep offering people who want to hide behind privacy laws when they can waive them with a signature. The two parties have disenfranchised me for decades. Screw them.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I just saw this:

Of course: Lawsuits filed in Texas, Florida over constitutional eligibility

Interestingly, the first argument in the motion goes to a lack of standing. That would be pretty much a standard approach to lawsuits anyway, but perhaps not the most politic of arguments. The motion argues that the question raises only a general claim of injury to the plaintiff rather than a “particularized” injury. While that’s based on plenty of precedent, it might rub some who see standing as a barrier to properly enforcing the Constitution the wrong way. That irritation might increase with the second major argument based on Berg v Obama that eligibility is “a non-justiciable political argument,” although again based on substantial precedent. Politically, Rubio is on much firmer ground with his positive argument in the latter part of the motion on what makes him an eligible candidate.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say what Rubio's "positive argument" is.

But I believe this brings the number of lawsuits thus far filed to three: these two, plus Paige in Vermont.

a reply to: schuyler

Nevertheless, the ONLY reason this is an issue is because some people want to use it as a potential way to disqualify a candidate they don't like.

The ONLY reason? Not by a long shot. Just one of many.

There are folks who look at this as a law-and-order issue... one set of rules for everyone.

And there are folks who see it as an issue of loyalty and allegiance and loophole big enough for someone with evil intentions to drive a Mack truck through.

Other folks (like me) see it as a divide-and-conquer issue.

Still others (and still including me) see it as end-run around the original intent -- in other words, we object to the means but not necessarily the end result.

I'm sure there are still more reasons folks might have. But it's certainly not ONLY one reason.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I just saw this:

Of course: Lawsuits filed in Texas, Florida over constitutional eligibility

Interestingly, the first argument in the motion goes to a lack of standing. That would be pretty much a standard approach to lawsuits anyway, but perhaps not the most politic of arguments. The motion argues that the question raises only a general claim of injury to the plaintiff rather than a “particularized” injury. While that’s based on plenty of precedent, it might rub some who see standing as a barrier to properly enforcing the Constitution the wrong way. That irritation might increase with the second major argument based on Berg v Obama that eligibility is “a non-justiciable political argument,” although again based on substantial precedent. Politically, Rubio is on much firmer ground with his positive argument in the latter part of the motion on what makes him an eligible candidate.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say what Rubio's "positive argument" is.

But I believe this brings the number of lawsuits thus far filed to three: these two, plus Paige in Vermont.

I wonder if a class action lawsuit is a possible approach and way of avoiding the particularized legal injury obstacle...

It almost seems the plaintiffs in most of these NBC cases are either daft, incompetent, or perhaps even sabotage their own efforts. Provocateurs?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I wonder if a class action lawsuit is a possible approach and way of avoiding the particularized legal injury obstacle...

I sure don't know -- my Magic 8 ball broke -- but I would think it's worth a try. Where an individual could not establish a particularized injury, because others suffered the same loss, perhaps a class of all those so injured could claim a particularized injury and pass legal muster for standing.

It almost seems the plaintiffs in most of these NBC cases are either daft, incompetent, or perhaps even sabotage their own efforts. Provocateurs?

All of the above???

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


So far, those who have raised the question regarding the definition of 'natural born Citizen' with the courts, during the last eight years, have been found to not have standing to pursue the answer. This is because they cannot demonstrate a legal injury to the Courts.

This is because they cannot demonstrate a legal injury to the Courts.

This is incredible, every thing I have been reading about the courts and the justice system in recent times has pointed out that the principle of common law (natural law) have been thrown out by govts and the courts in all western countries over recent decades.

Everything I have been reading has shown how the govt and the courts have built walls around the common law (natural law), the law of the land, or put another way, the law of the people by the people for the people.

An example is the traffic and infringement systems. I would expand on the infringement system to explain what I mean but I don't want to have my post deleted on the basis that its trolling or some such thing.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Given that there is no written law that says a person born on undisputed U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a citizen,

Actually there is such a law - well not a 'law' as such, it is actually in the Constitution. It is called the 14th Amendment (Clause 1).

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...

And notice that there is no mention of the parent's citizenship status. "ALL PERSONS BORN... in the United States...are citizens of the United States". (Foreign born citizens are not addressed in the Constitution - nor in this post).

ZERO citizen parents are required, NOT two, not even one; and that was confirmed by the Supreme Court decision of 1898 titled "United States v Wong Kim Ark".

Your entire premise is wrong from the get-go - and that is a slam dunk with no wiggle room for semantic games. The two citizen parent 'theory' has no legs what-so-ever. None. Zip. Nada.

I believe this particular definition is the natural law. No positive law is necessary to deem such a person a citizen -- they are a citizen according to natural law alone.

There is nothing 'natural' about citizenship law. Citizenship is an 'artificial' man-made concept about the membership of individuals in an 'artificial' man-made institution called a 'Nation State' (or country). Nation States are man made creation that are (usually) bounded by arbitrary, movable, man-made borders. Nation States can rise and fall for any number of reasons, including natural disasters, but mainly due to fairly arbitrary man-made causes.

From Wikipedia: Natural Law

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.

'Inherent Human Nature' doesn't define borders, humans define borders. 'Inherent Human Nature' doesn't require a people to rebel against the King and thus stop being the King's Subjects and instead become United States' Citizens.

There is nothing 'Inherently Human' about Citizenship. 'Natural Law' is just not a concept that applies to citizenship; it just doesn't.

To put it another way, someone born 'on the soil' of two citizen parents is a natural born U.S. citizen, because there is no other option at their birth. There is no other nation to be loyal to, subject to, or one day choose…so their one and only allegiance is to their nation of birth and blood.

That is simply not true at all.

First of all, as mentioned above, if you are born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction - meaning your parents are not diplomats or part of an invading army) then you are a citizen of the United States - period. Your parents status have nothing to do with your United States Citizenship if you are born in the US.

But here is the vital point that your assertion totally misses: Every nation state on the planet has the ABSOLUTE right to define who its citizens are in the same way that the United States gets to define who its citizens are. Again this has nothing to do with 'Natural Law' - it is Human Law. That necessarily means that multiple nation states can legally and perfectly 'naturally' claim the same individual as its citizens. People born in the United States to two citizen parents can actually be born citizens of three different countries with absolutely no ambiguity, no confused loyalties, no problems.

You see, some countries claim the foreign born descendants of citizens as its citizens too. For example, both Greece and Ireland do this. If you have an Irish born grandparent, you are an Irish Citizen, the instant you are born, no matter where you were born or whether your parents were Irish Citizens (though at least one of your parents would, of course, have been Irish by the same rule). Vice President Spiro Agnew, a heartbeat away from the Presidency, was both a Natural Born Citizen of the United States AND a Greek Citizen.

Again, 'Natural Law' has nothing to do with it, citizenship is a human concept and is governed by human law.

That is the epitome of nature -- coming solely from nature's creation rather than man-made laws or personal whim. Human rights further dictate that a person should never be stateless.

That is correct.

And that is why you cannot discuss 'Natural Law' with respect to Citizenship. Citizenship is a completely unnatural, human created concept entirely governed by man-made laws.

Having said all that, the 'natural' question arises: where then does the word 'natural' in the phrase 'natural born citizen' come from?

The answer is that it comes from the dictionary definition of the word. You'll notice in this link that there are several closely related definitions; of course 'natural' has several meanings with nuanced differences, and indeed 'natural law' comes from one of those meanings.

But there is one definition given here that applies directly and specifically to the phrase 'natural born citizen' - it is number 3 in the linked definition:

3
a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption

'Begotten as opposed to adopted' - IE "Born" as opposed to "made" - IE "Born a citizen" as opposed to "Made a citizen" - IE "Natural born" as opposed to "Naturalized".

To return again to your assertion that there is no law on the subject, the Supreme Court Case "Minor v Happersett" explicitly stated this binary relationship in 1875:

the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization"

To recap:

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that any person born in the United States is a citizen (and so are those people who are naturalized).
   
2. Minor v Happersett confirmed that the Constitution (14th Amendment) defines exactly two kinds of citizens, no more and no less: born or naturalized.
   
3. United States v Wong Kim Ark confirmed that the Constitution (14th Amendment) specified that the citizenship status of the parents did not affect the citizenship of the child born on American soil: Wong Kim Ark was born in America and had ZERO citizen parents, in fact his parents were not even eligible to become citizens.
   
   
   So, if there is a thing called 'natural born citizen' (and there is according to the Constitution Article 2 Section 1) then it must be one of Minor's two kinds of Citizens and it must be understood that it cannot be "Naturalized".
   
   Therefore a "Natural Born Citizen" must be one who is born a Citizen. Pure and Simple.
   
   And a completely artificial man-made concept that has nothing to do with "Natural Law".
   
   
   
   edit on 16/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)
   

a reply to: rnaa

The issue now revolves around the question of whether the parents were in the US legally. The argument taking shape is being in the US illegally and having a child would not grant them automatic US citizenship. The issue was raised ion 2010 and it was noted scotus has not reviewed / ruled on the issue since the court case you talk about.

It's entirely possible for scotus to issue a ruling on citizenship dealing with parents who are in the US illegally. Texas has been refusing to issue birth certificates to illegals by refusing to accept the ID's mexico has issued to them. Scotus upheld the action taken by Texas.

Obama: Theories that he was born in Kenya. (Don't care to hear the argument on this .. just an example)
Cruz: Born in Canada

Now.. Someone argues Obama was born in Kenya. Now the Obama drone says "Nuh uh he was born in Hawaii..even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was a citizen.

Random Democrat: Cruz can not be President, He was born in Canada. Cruz supporter says his mother is a citizen.


Do we see the problem?

I have always felt that unless YOU your FATHER and MOTHER are all in the hospital.. inside the US borders (Alaska and Hawaii .. Excluding wannabe states like Puerto Rico) You can not be President.. non of this Mother/Father are citizens being born abroad.a

originally posted by: schuyler
You're either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or not a citizen. Cruz is not a naturalized citizen; he is a citizen because his mother is a citizen. I just used "naturalized' in its proper context. One parent being a citizen makes you a citizen, no matter where you were born.

We went through the same thing with Obama.
We went through the same thing with McCain.
Yes, the "circumstances" were different in both.

Now, you want SCOTUS to resolve the issue. It's very unlikely to happen, nor does it need to. This is being used by some people as a political club to spread FUD. I know this is earth-shatteringly important to a certain subset of people who cannot stand the ambiguity involved, but most people do not have a problem with it and believe these "concerns" are contrived, irrelevant, and politically motivated. Now the only thing this group of people has to do now is

get over it.

I listen to a constitutional scholar, (who claimed to have studied this very issue for years) being interviewed the other night on MSM regarding this issue.

During the interview, she cited several previous SCOTUS rulings that address different aspects of the issue.

In one of those rulings, (I think she said in the late 1930s or 1940s) she described where it stated as part of the ruling that there were two ways to become a "Naturalized Citizen."

The first is called being "naturalized at birth" and it's applied to children born outside U.S. territory with one or more parents who are U.S. citizens.

The second method of naturalization is through the judicial process and is applicable to people born outside our territory when neither parent is a U.S. citizen.

She went on to say that the term "Natural Born" was derived from English Common Law, (something the SCOTUS relies on in these types of cases, according to her) and that under Common Law it meant being "Of The Land" and thereby indisputable. As if the laws of nature dictates it be so, without and despite any intervention by mankind.

At this point in time, if I had a vote on the court, I'd have to say that Cruz is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen."

I tend to agree with both, the constitutional scholar I listened to on MSM and this thread author's OP. But then, I have been under the impression that "natural born" meant born here, my entire life.

Either way, this issue is definitely "unsettled" and right now I wouldn't bet any money on how it turns out, but regardless of how it ends, it needs to end.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Given my rather long discussion above doesn't discuss the foreign born citizens who are not naturalized, this addendum will try to grant some clarity around this subject.

Here's the thing. There is room for a legitimate academic discussion about whether foreign born citizens can be be considered 'natural born' for Article 2 Section 1 purposes. There is no case law or binding precedent that I know of that addresses it. Persons born on American soil (under jurisdiction) are clearly and unimpeachably Natural Born Citizens - it is the foreign born that is in question.

The crux of the issue for foreign born citizens is this:

1. Congress has the Constitutional authority to make 'uniform naturalization laws'
   
2. In the process of making naturalization law, Congress has defined classes of foreign born people who can be naturalized to become citizens, and those classes of foreign born people who do not need to be naturalized to become citizens (because of the circumstances of their birth).
   
3. Therefore does this mean that:
   
   
   
   1. these people are actually 'born citizens' or
      
   2. these people are actually 'naturalized at birth'
      
   
   

Now I said there is room for academic discussion on this issue and that is so. The current state of that discussion is that the majority of 'experts' maintain that these people are indeed 'born citizens' and thus 'natural born citizens'. That noise you just heard was Ted Cruz heaving a sigh of relief.

But it has never been tested in court, and the only likelihood for that to happen would be if some state denied Cruz a place on the ballot and he sued.

Short of such a suit, Congress set a non-binding precedent in 2007 when they declared in a unanimous bipartisan resolution that McCain was a natural born citizen. What this means in practical terms is that they were indicating before it became an issue in the election that they would not consider an objection to Electoral College votes based on his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. The resolution has no effect on anything - not on the courts and not even on themselves - as they could have actually ignored the resolution when it came down to validating the Electoral College vote had they so chosen.

Cruz has a similar claim as McCain though perhaps not quite as strong. Interesting that the Republicans will not let a similar resolution come up for a vote this time.

The arguments on both sides come down to on the one hand, Congress is saying that certain classes of foreign born individuals are citizens without having to be naturalized, and on the other hand these classes of foreign born citizens are really only citizens because of Congressional law.

I maintain that there is a simpler distinction, one derived directly from the dictionary definition of the word 'natural' as described in my earlier post:

begotten as distinguished from adopted

That is, I distinguish WHEN citizenship was 'acquired', not where and not how.

According to Minor v Happersett, there are exactly two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. This must apply to all classes of citizens, whether native born or foreign born. Clearly, native born are born citizens and clearly naturalized citizens have acquired their citizenship AFTER their birth.

When Congress describes a class of foreign born people who are citizens because of their birth circumstances and therefore do NOT need to be naturalized, they are describing people who are citizens and who are not naturalized - and therefore the only 'kind' of citizen they can be is a 'born citizen' a natural born citizen.

By my argument then, and the opinion of the majority of the academic community, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency. Note that this has nothing to do with his electability.

My opinion means squat, of course, as does everyone's really. The discussion is actually exactly like the how many angels on the head of a pin discussion. Both sides of the argument are valid points and the necessity of the distinction is actually absurd.

Nor will any state deny him a place on the ballot should he win the nomination, and I suspect if they do, the actual question before the court will be on their legal right to deny him a place not whether or not he is a NBC (but I am neither a lawyer nor a prophet).

If Cruz' NBC status was actually and truly the question before the court, I have no doubt that they would find in his favor, and not necessarily because of any of the arguments listed above, in the end picking between them is just a coin flip - pick one, both answers are equally good. I just think the courts would find it more 'reasonable' to be inclusive than exclusive and a negative finding would probably raise the requirement for a yet another amendment.

At the end of the day, the courts don't really belong in the discussion. The only institution with the Constitutional authority to 'vet' his eligibility is Congress during the validation of the Electoral College vote, and unless he actually wins (fat chance) it would be a moot point.

Its honestly amazing, this comes up in the news, no ones said ANYTHING about it before

And then all the sudden its a huge concern to everyone.

You can almost SEE and hear the news tell everyone what to be concerned about, what to react to, and watch them as they react.

I hear the dog bark, and then listen for the sheep ......

This has been done to death with everyone from McCain to Obama, to past presidents.......and the answer is the same

Get over it.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

As Donald Trump said, it's an issue now because Cruz is moving up in the polls. (Gotta luv DT's honesty.)

It really is an issue that needs to be resolved once and for all. There are too many opinions, interpretations, and speculations out there. Getting sidetracked by it is unproductive.

The courts should address this issue once and for all. It is important to be constitutionally accurate.

Cruz was a Canadian citizen until 15 months ago. That's an issue, imo.

I a big "Game of Thrones" fan and one of the common themes among the various rulers of the time is for them to marry their daughters off to the sons of others rulers, thereby gaining or insuring favoritism from the other kingdoms.

With that in mind, I can see a very good reason that our founding fathers may very well have intended for the term "natural born" to mean "of the land" or born on U.S. soil.

With our newfound independence from English rule, does anyone think they would have allowed an American citizen to marry a English ruler and have kids born in Englland who will eligible to run for POTUS in the future?

I find that hard to believe.

a reply to: Flatfish

Excellent point....especially that last paragraph. With Cruz being born on Canadian soil and holding citizenship of Canada all his life up until 15 months ago, I would say that is an issue.

The courts have been vague on what is and is not a citizen, and often have left the matter to the congress to make that determination. Even the best legal minds are putting for very valid arguments to that fact.

If you go back to the intention of the founding fathers, then the matter comes down to place and who the father is. If the father is a US citizen or the child is born on US soil they would be considered a natural born citizen of the United States of America. This was affirmed back in 1898 in the case: United States V. Wong Kim Ark. In that case Wong was born in San Francisco, California, and was the child of 2 immigrant Chinese who had lived and did business in the city. He took a trip abroad and was denied entry into the USA and challenged it in court, and won, with the court ruling that a child born in the United States, of Chinese Citizens, who had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business other than for the Chinese government, was automatically became a U.S. Citizen.
Now what will have bearing on the case of say Cruz would be Perez V. Brownell: In 1958 this case was brought before the US Supreme court: A child was born, 1909, in El Paso, Texas, in the United States of America, his parents took him back to Mexico around 1919/1920. In 1928, he was informed he was born in Texas. During World War II, he came back to the United States, under the worker program, but kept his birth secret. In 1947, he returned to Mexico, and again applied to be a citizen of the United States, and admitted to being born in the USA, and on his arrival, was arrested for failing to register for the selective service. Under oath, he admitted that between 1944 and 1947 he remained outside of the USA to avoide military service and had voted in an election in Mexico in 1946. The court found that he was not eligible to be a citizen of the USA and stripped him of such.
Later that ruling would be overturned in 1967, in Afroyim V. Rusk, where the basis was that a citizen of the United States, an immigrant from Poland had voted in an election in Israel. They determined that, in the words of Justice Black: All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States...." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.

Now where Ted Cruz is concerned, this is the points of law that he will have to contend with as it deals with his mother. There are a series of laws and acts that deal with immigration on both sides and one of them being the Expatriation act of 1868: The act stating that a person has the inherient right to give up their citizenship. Now further case law would be from 1950 in Savorgnan v. United States. In that case a woman was considered to give up her citizenship to the United States when a woman who applied for Italian citizenship by virtue of her marriage to her husband had voluntarily given up her U.S. citizenship.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The issue now revolves around the question of whether the parents were in the US legally. The argument taking shape is being in the US illegally and having a child would not grant them automatic US citizenship.

The 14th Amendment makes no mention of how or why the parents are in the country (other than to exclude diplomats and invading armies). Whether the parents are in the country legally or illegally has no bearing on the citizenship of the child.

I know there are some who are trying to somehow deprive the children of undocumented aliens of their citizenship. These bigots will fail.

Texas has been refusing to issue birth certificates to illegals by refusing to accept the ID's mexico has issued to them. Scotus upheld the action taken by Texas.

You are misunderstanding what is happening here.

All children born in the United States are U. S. Citizens. Every single one (unless their parents are diplomats or members of an invading army).

All children born in Texas are documented in the Texas Vital Statistics office (what ever its name is). Even those born to undocumented parents. This means that a Texas Birth Certificate exists for them.

What Texas is refusing to do is to issue a Certified Copy of the Birth certificate to people who cannot satisfactorily prove that they have a legal right to it. Remember the foo-fa-raw about people trying to get the State of Hawai'i to give them a copy of Obama's Birth Certificate? Hawai'i cannot by, State law do that unless you are actually Obama or one of a defined set of people with a 'legitimate interest' - certain relatives, a court.

That applied to Texas as well. What Texas is doing is enforcing a extraordinary high standard of proof on Mexican nationals. The children are citizens and the birth certificates exist, it is just that the parents cannot get certified copies of them.

The problem is that Texas has stopped accepting a particular Mexican document as identification. It has nothing to do with the child's citizenship or the birth certificate itself. See this article for a discussion of the issue: Immigrants sue Texas over state's denial of birth certificates for U.S.-born children

Quotes on the court case you quote are from this article: Judge: Texas can deny birth certificates for U.S.-born children of some immigrants
According to the Governor Paxton:

“Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms,”

According to the Judge:

“While the Court is very troubled at the prospect of Texas-born children, and their parents, being denied issuance of a birth certificate,"... (and) the families’ attorneys had “provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents, the court needed more evidence before issuing the emergency injunction they had sought".

So the matter in Texas is not settled. The parents had asked for an emergency injunction and the judge denied it. That is a long way from the end of the matter, and the law suit itself will continue to progress through the system. Ultimately Texas will will need to fix it, the lawsuit will succeed.