US law firm condemns immigration attorneys using birthright citizenship to ‘market through fear’

Banias Law, a South Carolina law firm, condemned immigration attorneys for using birthright citizenship to instill fear in clients.

A prominent U.S. law firm has strongly condemned immigration attorneys who have used the contentious issue of birthright citizenship to “market through fear” in clients.

Legal community reacts as Banias Law denounces unethical marketing by immigration attorneys over birthright citizenship.(File Images/Banias Law)

Banias Law, a South Carolina-based law firm, voiced its disapproval in a post on X (formerly Twitter), alluding to a federal judge's scathing criticism of the Justice Department’s defence of an executive order by former President Donald Trump attempting to rescind birthright citizenship.

“The immigration attorneys who have used the birthright citizenship issue to market through fear are subject to the same criticism as @TheJusticeDept attorney who argued this case: ‘I have difficulty understanding how a member of the Bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order . . . It just boggles my mind,’” Banias Law posted.

Federal judge blocks Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, deems it unconstitutional

Legal opposition emerged after Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle issued his temporary suspension of Trump's executive order on Thursday. Senator Elizabeth Warren led the criticism againstTrump's executive order, which tried to invalidate birthright citizenship despite having a Constitutional foundation.

Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, was unambiguous in his rebuke of the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said from the bench.

“There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, ‘Where were the judges? Where were the lawyers?’”

“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” the judge asked. When Shumate responded affirmatively, Coughenour retorted, “Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

The ruling halts the implementation of the executive order for at least 14 days as lawsuits proceed in courts across the country. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who filed one of the lawsuits on behalf of his state alongside Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, called the order an “unconstitutional, un-American, and cruel attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.” Other lawsuits have been filed in Massachusetts and New Hampshire by additional states and immigrant rights groups.