Several states who have, so far, kept the Trump administration from moving forward with its expressed plans to ban birthright citizenship are pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court to keep it that way.

In a 50-page response to the Trump administration’s application for a partial stay, the lead plaintiffs in one of three similar efforts to stop the ban say the state of the law is firm and set and that there is “not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay.”

“Many aspects of constitutional interpretation are hotly debated, but not the merits question in this case,” the Friday motion reads. “For over a century, it has been the settled view of this Court, Congress, the Executive Branch, and legal scholars that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to babies born in the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship, ‘allegiance,’ ‘domicile,’ immigration status, or nationality.”

In Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts, federal judges have issued orders prohibiting federal agencies from implementing or enforcing Trump’s Executive Order 14160.

While the government asked the high court to undo each of the three separate pauses in the same application, each of those three cases is docketed individually — and consecutively. The likely upshot, however, is each case being consolidated into the same general controversy — if and when the justices decide to hear oral arguments.

The Trump administration’s appeal largely eschews the merits of the underlying birthright citizenship policy in favor of fighting over the propriety of the district court injunctions stopping the ban.

The plaintiffs in the case stylized as Trump v. Washington suggest a certain level of laziness because the government’s effort bypasses the merits discussed by the district courts in favor of a “myopic request” that “instead focuses entirely on the scope of relief.”

“Unsurprisingly, every court to evaluate the Citizen Stripping Order has found it unconstitutional,” the motion continues. “And the stay application does not even bother asking this Court to review those correct conclusions.”

Even on the Trump administration’s terms, however, the plaintiffs say there is simply no reason for dissolving the lower court orders.

“Most obviously, the federal government can show no harm from simply being ordered to continue following the law as it has long been understood,” the motion goes on. “Preserving the status quo while this litigation rapidly proceeds cannot plausibly be an irreparable injury, and this Court can deny the stay on this ground alone.”

The plaintiffs rubbish the government for arguing they have and will continue to suffer “irreparable harm” from extant and prospective “universal injunctions.” Especially because this theory is only advanced in general terms, the response motion notes.

“The federal government alleges various harms from overbroad injunctions generally, but offers no evidence whatsoever of irreparable harm from the specific injunctions at issue here,” the motion reads. “And with good reason. There is no plausible argument that the government will be irreparably harmed by continuing to respect a foundational constitutional right that has been established—and accepted by all branches of the federal government—for more than a century.”

In fact, the states predict the procedural gambit will be summarily rejected. A chapter heading in the motion is titled, “There Is No Reasonable Probability that this Court Will Grant Certiorari or Fair Prospect of Reversal.”

The Washington plaintiffs also spend considerable time addressing the merits of the case – including the Supreme Court case long-considered authoritative on birthright citizenship.

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s plain text guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the motion reads. “The Citizenship Clause is broad by design, bestowing citizenship on children born in the United States regardless of race, ethnicity, alienage, or the immigration status of one’s parents. Binding precedent confirms that understanding,”

The motion continues like this, at length:

“The federal government seeks to distort the term ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ beyond all recognizable bounds. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, the group of U.S.-born individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is both extraordinarily small and well defined. As this Court held in Wong Kim Ark, that phrase reflects a narrow and historically grounded exception for groups recognized as exempt from the United States’ jurisdiction as a matter of fact, comity, or practice.

“In particular, it excludes U.S.-born children who are born to diplomats covered by diplomatic immunity and members of foreign armies at war against the United States. It has never been understood to exclude U.S.-born children based on their parents’ citizenship, immigration status, ‘allegiance,’ or ‘domicile,’ and indeed, the federal government does not point to a single binding case that accepts its strained theory.“

The Washington response motion also briefly addresses the Trump administration’s arguments about nationwide injunctions to heart. The motion acknowledges that such relief has increased apace in recent years but stressing that nationwide injunctions do, in fact, have a time and a place.

“The Citizenship Stripping Order shows precisely why nationwide relief is critical in an extraordinary case like this one,” the motion goes on. “Restricting nationwide relief would be particularly inappropriate here, as it would defeat a central guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a uniform, national rule for citizenship. If any injunction warranted a nationwide scope, it is this one.”

Washington strongly admonishes the government for trying to litigate the injunction issue using the birthright citizenship cases.

The motion concludes:

“The Citizenship Stripping Order’s attempt to unilaterally amend the Fourteenth Amendment warrants an injunction that preserves the guarantee of birthright citizenship as it has long existed: A uniform right that applies nationwide and is beyond the President’s power to destroy. The federal government has failed to establish any of the criteria necessary to get the extraordinary relief they seek and have not come close to meeting their ‘especially heavy burden.’

“These cases are proceeding on expedited schedules in three different courts of appeals—all of which have denied the federal government this very same intervention. The federal government has not shown irreparable harm or a reasonable probability the Court would grant certiorari and reverse the district court’s order. This case is not a vehicle to resolve the question of nationwide injunctions. And the public interest weighs heavily against granting a stay. The Application should be denied.“

Law & Crime

Stephanie Demetrius, a substitute teacher in Ohio, has been arrested after allegedly paying a student to kill her soon-to-be ex-husband.

The 44-year-old woman was charged with felony conspiracy after police said she approached a student at The Academy For Urban Scholars High School in Columbus on March 26 and offered him $2,000 to murder her husband. 

Sgt. James Fuqua of the Columbus Division of Police stated, “This particular teacher was attempting to groom this young person into committing murder.”

According to investigators, Demetrius provided the student with $250 in cash as a down payment for the killing, and they claim to have a recorded phone conversation between the teacher and the student discussing the remainder of the payment. Initially, reports suggested that the student’s mother found suspicious information on her son’s phone, but law enforcement sources clarified that the student had gone to his mother because he was scared, prompting her to contact authorities. 

Further reports revealed that Demetrius allegedly discussed the timing of when her children would be out of the house and noted that her estranged husband works from home. She reportedly dismissed concerns about neighbors hearing the gunfire. 

Demetrius has posted a $150,000 bond and is set to appear in court next week for a preliminary hearing. The Academy For Urban Scholars High School declined to comment on the incident.

Germany‘s Interior Ministry has called for civil defence training in schools and is urging citizens to stockpile food, water and essentials in response to the deteriorating security situation in Europe and a growing WW3 threat.

The unprecedented move, confirmed in a statement to Handelsblatt newspaper, would see German schoolchildren taught how to respond in volatile war-like scenarios.

A ministry spokesman said civil protection should be given greater focus, including in schools, given the alarming recent geopolitical developments and expert testimonies that Russia could be ready to strike NATO territory within a few years.

Defence spokesperson Roderich Kiesewetter for the conservative CDU party said it was ‘absolutely necessary’ for schoolchildren to train for emergencies, calling them ‘especially vulnerable and particularly affected in an emergency’.

He is calling for mandatory basic training in disaster response, modelled on systems in Finland, which has been preparing citizens for the possibility of a war with Vladimir Putin‘s Russia for years.

Berlin says it even stands ready to provide all schools and teachers with national crisis materials via the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) – and this is although technically education matters are something decided independently by each federal state.

The ministry also approved a new EU Commission initiative on wartime readiness, and recommended that all German citizens even prepare emergency supplies to last at least 72 hours as per recommendations from the European Union.

‘Temporary crisis situations can be handled well with basic reserves,’ the spokesperson said as Kiesewetter pointed out that Germany is ‘very less resilient’ with ‘backward’ crisis preparedness structures compared to Nordic countries.

The push for preparedness follows rising concern that Germany is woefully unprepared for a major conflict – and not just in terms of poorly-equipped army.

Red Cross officials have warned that massive swathes of the population would be left utterly defenceless in a real emergency, while internal assessments suggest the civil protection system is totally underfunded, disorganised and even outdated.

Last month, estimates suggested Germany would need to spend a staggering €30 billion to bring its civil defence up to minimum wartime standards.

German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the inspector general of Germany’s army, Carsten Breuer, have pointed out that a major war threatening Europe was a realistic scenario.

‘According to our analyses, Russia is capable of attacking NATO territory in four to seven years,’ Breuer recently told attendees at a security conference in Berlin.

The EU is now pushing for every household in the 27-nation bloc to have a three-day survival kit ready as Brussels hopes to ensure every citizen is equipped for 72 hours of self-sufficiency amid the growing war threat.

EU citizens are told to stock up on a dozen key items, including matches, ID documents in a waterproof pouch, bottled water, energy bars and a flashlight, as part of their ‘resilience’ kit.   

It comes as security advisors have warned Britons to pack a 72-hour survival kit amid fears of a plot by Russia to sabotage the UK’s energy pipelines.

As the UK pursues Net Zero environmental targets – leading to the closure of coal-fired power stations – the country has become increasingly reliant on supplies of gas and electricity from abroad in order to ‘keep the lights on’.

Nearly 40 per cent of the UK’s gas supply is imported from Norway, much of which comes through the single, 700-mile Langeled pipeline.

Concerns that the Russians are planning a sabotage operation have escalated since one of their spy ships, the Yantar, was detected mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure in the North Sea in recent months.

With the UK reported to have come close to blackouts during the past winter – saved only by emergency reserves and electricity imported undersea from Denmark – security experts have argued that British households should follow the example of the EU, which has advised citizens to pack a three-day survival kit.

This should include water, non-perishable food, medicines, a battery-powered radio, a torch, identity documents and a Swiss Army knife.

The protection of critical undersea infrastructure will form part of the Government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) by former Nato secretary-general Lord Robertson this year.

A source said: ‘We know that the Russians are active in the North Sea and have the power to cripple our energy links. We need to become much more self-sufficient, and quickly. And households should be ready for all eventualities.’

Meanwhile, European leaders have warned the invasion of Ukraine could soon break out into a ‘global’ war as some countries have already stepped up their preparation by distributing war survival guides.

The EU has now joined such efforts following a landmark report from Finland‘s former president Sauli Niinisto last year on strengthening Europe’s civilian and military preparedness.

Lahbib said: ‘Knowing what to do in case of danger, gaming out different scenarios, that’s also a way to prevent people from panicking. All of this comes in addition to national strategies.’

This will ensure panic does not set in if disaster strikes, she added, recalling shelves being raided clean of toilet paper in the early days of the pandemic.

In a letter to EU chief Ursula von der Leyen, three lawmakers from the European Parliament’s centrist group Renew urged the commission to go further by sending a handbook to every household in the bloc on preparing for ‘various crises, from potential conflict to climate disasters, pandemics and cyberthreats.’ 

EU leaders believe Vladimir Putin could march further into Europe if Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is successful.

‘The Russians have globalized the war in Ukraine,’ French President Emmanuel Macron said in February. ‘There’s a conflict in Ukraine, in which Russians, as a matter of fact, have made things global. Will [the war] be limited to this theater? Let’s hope so.’The new 20-page booklet, reportedly packed with 63 measures, will advise the French on how to protect themselves and their families in the event of armed conflict, natural disasters, industrial accidents or even a nuclear leak. 

It will include tips on how to create a ‘survival kit’ with essentials including six litres of water, canned food, batteries, a torch and basic medical supplies such as paracetamol and bandages.

Crucially, it will offer advice on what to do if an attack is imminent, including how to join local defence efforts, such as signing up for reserve units or firefighting groups. 

Citizens will also be told to ‘lock their doors’ in the event of a nuclear incident  –  advice that has already drawn ridicule from commentators.

Despite the alarming content, the French government insists the booklet is not a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

President Macron has previously warned that Europe must be prepared to confront the ‘Russian threat’ and adapt to the possibility that America could scale back its military support. 

The new 20-page booklet will include tips on how to create a ‘survival kit’ with essentials including six litres of water, canned food, batteries, a torch and basic medical supplies such as paracetamol and bandages. Pictured is a graphic from a French government website showing the recommended contents of the kit

Officials from the General Secretariat for Defence and National Security (SGDSN), which oversaw the booklet’s creation, claim the aim of the survival guide is simply to bolster France’s resilience in the face of ‘all types of crises’.

The decision to draft the booklet reportedly dates back to 2022 in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic as part of a national strategy to improve public preparedness. 

But the timing of its release – expected before summer if approved by Prime Minister Francois Bayrou – has raised eyebrows. 

French newspaper Le Figaro noted that the kit’s rollout ‘could easily suggest that the state is reacting to the unstable international situation’.

Credits: Daily Mail

• Says Let no Judge flirt with politicians in the performance of their constitutional adjudicatory functions…
• “Our judges must be left alone by those who think that our judges must have political ideologies…“

By J. S Okutepa, SAN

The Nigeria judiciary that I know has codes of conduct for judicial officers. Nigerian judges are not supposed to be politicians and are not allowed to be members of any political party. They are to be far from politics and political parties in whatever form.

Therefore, only those who want to be mischievous or allowed themselves to be fooled by mischievous patronizing statements will be deaf to the concerns of the public of the growing erosion of confidence of the public in the judicial institution. Judicial officers, by the rules code of conduct for judicial, are expected to avoid appearances of improprieties in their personal and professional capacities.That is the reality we must face and preach.

As rightly observed by a writer: “Propriety and the appearance of propriety, both professional and personal, are essential elements of a Judge’s life. As members of the public expect a high standard of conduct from a Judge, he or she must, when in doubt about attending an event or receiving a gift, however small, ask himself or herself the question- “How might this look in the eyes of the public?”

The code of conduct for judicial officers is very clear on what is expected of judicial officers. It provides to the effect that : A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judge’s activities both in his professional and private life. A judicial officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Judge must be sensitive to the need to avoid contacts that may lead people to speculate that there is a special relationship between him and someone whom the Judge may be tempted to favour in some way in the course of his judicial duties. A judicial officer must avoid social relationships that are improper or may give rise to an appearance of impropriety or that may cast doubt on the ability of a judicial officer to decide cases impartially.

A Judge shall not hold membership in any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, national origin or other irrelevant causes contrary to fundamental human rights and/or the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy under the Nigerian Constitution. A judge shall not engage in gambling as a leisure activity.

These are some of the rules that judicial officers are bound to observe and follow because of the peculiar positions they occupy in Nigeria. The pre-eminent positions of our judex do not permit them to belong to or have political leanings or ideologies. That is why section 6 of the 1999 constitution vests judicial power in the courts. Judicial officers are the only ones with powers to adjudicate over disputes between individuals and individuals and individuals and the government or the government and government.

This power makes them to be special breeds that must not be seen to continue to be seen in the gathering of those whose only tools for political survival is partisan partiality of very impure weapons. While it gives political class joy to be seen with judicial officers, judicial officers must resist such tendencies and temptations to be seen with partisan politicians as it will destroy the confidence in justice. Justice is rooted in confidence .

It will, therefore, be short-sighted and/or myopic audacity of arrogance for anyone to argue that because judges in the USA have a political ideological stand, Nigerian judges must necessarily copy the American judges. Americans are Americans. Nigerians are Nigerians. Theirs are not ours, and ours are not theirs. Apologies to my lord Niki Tobi JSC of blessed memories.

It is important I quote my lord Niki Tobi JSC here. Hear the erudite Jurist: “I see from Exhibit EP2/34 the need for Nigerian Judges to maintain a very big distance from politics and politicians. Our Constitution forbids any mingling. As Judges, we must obey the Constitution. The two professions do not meet and will never meet at all in our democracy in the discharge of their functions.

While politics as a profession is fully and totally based on partiality, most of the time, judgeship as a profession is fully and totally based on impartiality, the opposite of partiality. Bias is the trade mark of politicians. Non-bias is the trade mark of the Judge. That again creates a scenario of superlatives in the realm of opposites. Therefore, the expressions “politician” and “Judge” are opposites, so to say, in their functional contents as above, though not in their ordinary dictionary meaning.

Their waters never meet in the same way Rivers Niger and Benue meet at the confluence near Lokoja. If they meet, the victim will be DEMOCRACY most of the time and that will be bad for sovereign Nigeria. And so Judges should, on no account, dance to the music played by politicians because that will completely destroy their role as independent umpires in the judicial process.

Let no Judge flirt with politicians in the performance of their constitutional adjudicatory functions. When I say this, I must also say that I have nothing against politicians. They are our brothers and sisters in our homes. One can hardly find any Nigerian community or family without them. There cannot be democracy without them, and we need democracy, not despotism, oligarchy and totalitarianism. They are jolly good fellows. The only point I am making is that their professional tools are different from ours, and the Nigerian Judge should know this before he finds himself or falls into a mirage where he cannot retrace his steps to administer justice. That type of misfortune can fall on him if the National Judicial Council gets annoyed with his conduct. Ours are not theirs. Theirs are not ours. I will not say more. I will not say less, too. So be it.”

Our judges must be left alone by those who think that our judges must have political ideologies. Our judges must also resist the temptation to think they are politicians like American judges. They are not. The two professions, judgeships and politicians, do not need to meet. And they should not meet. And when they meet, the victim will be the undiluted purity of justice and the rule of law.

Let no one tell us judges in America decide on ideological lines, and so Nigerian judges must copy them. No, they should not. In America, judges are elected. In Nigeria, judges are not elected but appointed based on the need to avoid partisan partiality.