UN chief urges divided nations to approve blueprint to address global challenges from climate to AI

SEATTLE: A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
US District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional. When the attorney, Brett Shumate, said he’d like a chance to explain it in a full briefing, Coughenour told him the hearing was his chance.
The temporary restraining order sought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to get a hearing before a judge and applies nationally.
The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country. The suits include personal testimonies from attorneys general who are US citizens by birthright, and names pregnant women who are afraid their children won’t become US citizens.
Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by grilling the administration’s attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. Coughenour said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged was so clearly unconstitutional.
Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge for an opportunity to have a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than have a 14-day restraining order issued blocking its implementation.
Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Inauguration Day, is slated to take effect on Feb. 19. It could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits. In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the four-state suit filed in Seattle.
The Trump administration argued in papers filed Wednesday that the states don’t have grounds to bring a suit against the order and that no damage has yet been done, so temporary relief isn’t called for. The administration’s attorneys also clarified that the executive order only applies to people born after Feb. 19, when it’s set to take effect.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the US, and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.
Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says: “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.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and orders federal agencies to not recognize citizenship for children who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen .
A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.
Trump’s order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for instance, a US citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong said this week.
One of the lawsuits aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency status.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”

THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani “bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds.”
Khan said that Afghan women and girls, as well as the LGBTQ community, were facing “an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban.
“Our action signals that the status quo for women and girls in Afghanistan is not acceptable,” added Khan.
ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application before deciding whether to issue the warrants — a process that could take weeks or even months.
The court, based in The Hague, was set up to rule on the world’s worst crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It has no police force of its own and relies on its 125 member states to carry out its warrants — with mixed results.
In theory this means that anyone subject to an ICC arrest warrant cannot travel to a member state for fear of being detained.
Khan warned he would soon be seeking additional applications for other Taliban officials.
Akhundzada inherited the Taliban leadership in May 2016 after a US drone strike in Pakistan killed his predecessor.
Believed to be in his 60s or 70s, the reclusive supreme leader rules by decree from the Taliban movement’s birthplace in southern Kandahar.
Haqqani was a close associate of Taliban founder Mullah Omar and served as a negotiator during discussions with US representatives in 2020.
ICC prosecutor Khan argued the Taliban was “brutally” repressing resistance through crimes “including murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement the prosecutor’s actions should put the Taliban’s exclusion of women and girls from public life back on the international agenda.
“This is an important moment for Afghan women and girls who have been waiting much too long for justice,” HRW’s women’s rights deputy director, Heather Barr, told AFP, calling for “other efforts to hold the Taliban fully accountable.”
The move was praised by Afghan women activists, including Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan former lawmaker and the ousted government’s ex-ambassador to Norway.
“It’s a victory,” she told AFP from London.
“This also could be counted as (an) important achievement for feminism globally... and particularly for women in Afghanistan.”
The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, called the move “a crucial step... for accountability in Afghanistan” on X.
 After sweeping back to power in August 2021, the Taliban authorities pledged a softer rule than their first rein from 1996-2001. But they quickly imposed restrictions on women and girls that the United Nations has labelled “gender apartheid.”
Edicts in line with their interpretation of Islamic law have squeezed women and girls from public life.
They have barred girls from secondary school and women from university, making Afghanistan the only country in the world to impose such bans.
Taliban authorities imposed restrictions on women working for non-governmental groups and other employment, with thousands of women losing government jobs — or being paid to stay at home.
Beauty salons have been closed and women blocked from visiting public parks, gyms and baths as well as traveling long distances without a male chaperone.
A “vice and virtue” law announced last summer ordered women not to sing or recite poetry in public and for their voices and bodies to be “concealed” outside the home.
The few remaining women TV presenters wear tight headscarves and face masks in line with a 2022 diktat by Akhundzada that women cover everything but their eyes and hands in public.
The international community has condemned the restrictions, which remain a key sticking point in the Taliban authorities’ pursuit of official recognition, which it has not received from any state.
The Taliban authorities have dismissed international criticism of their policies, saying all citizens’ rights are provided for under Islamic law.