Business

Column: A Trump judge dropped his unwavering support for birthright citizenship to conform to Trump's view

Published

1 year ago

January 25, 2025

Column: A Trump judge dropped his unwavering support for birthright citizenship to conform to Trump's view

Over his seven years on the federal bench, James C. Ho has acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of a notably conservative court, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

So it’s proper to take heed of Ho’s position on a temporarily blocked issue that Donald Trump has lately placed on the front burner: Birthright citizenship, the principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment that virtually all children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

In an executive order issued on inauguration day, Jan. 20, Trump declared that the right of birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump’s order was temporarily blocked Thursday by a federal judge in Seattle.

Text, history, judicial precedent, and Executive Branch interpretation confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches most U.S.-born children of aliens, including illegal aliens.

— James C. Ho, 2006

Among legal scholars, that’s a minority view, even a fringe view. The 14th Amendment is forthright; it states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Ho has long voiced the broadest view of those words. But not lately.

Let’s trace his intellectual journey on the issue.

Ho, as it happens, is an immigrant himself. He was born in Taiwan to parents who immigrated to the U.S. when he was a child and acquired naturalized U.S. citizenship at age 9.

No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship.

— James C. Ho, 2024

Ho’s judicial stance has been solidly conservative. Last year, writing in a case in which his colleagues reversed a ruling by a federal judge in Texas that had blocked the distribution of the abortion drug mifepristone nationwide, Ho engaged in what I called a “curious flight of fancy” to advocate for the ban.

He asserted that abortions cause “aesthetic injury” to doctors forced to participate in the procedure, even if only by treating patients for adverse reactions.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” Ho wrote. “Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.” He argued in favor of granting the physician plaintiffs in the case a legal interest in the outcome of abortions achieved via the drug, even though none of the plaintiffs had treated women who had taken it.

“The [Food and Drug Administration] has approved the use of a drug that threatens to destroy the unborn children in whom Plaintiffs have an interest,” Ho wrote. “And this injury is likewise redressable by a court order holding unlawful and setting aside approval of that abortifacient drug.”

Ho’s earliest writing on the birthright citizenship that I could find was published in 2006 in The Green Bag, a law journal. At the time, Ho’s career encompassed service as a counsel to the Senate Republican caucus and service as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He would later serve as solicitor general of Texas, before his appointment to the 5th Circuit appeals court by Trump in 2017.

In his 2006 article, titled “Defining ‘American,’” Ho focused specifically and at length on the argument that children of undocumented immigrants aren’t entitled to birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship, he wrote, “is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.”

Ho dismissed the assertion by critics of birthright citizenship that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes those who are in the U.S. illegally.” Even they, he wrote, are subject to the authority of the U.S. government, and therefore covered by the citizenship clause. He endorsed the most common interpretation, which is that the “jurisdiction” clause excludes only the children of diplomats serving their home countries in the U.S., and enemy combatants on U.S. soil. Instead, he wrote, the citizenship clause “covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens.”

Ho wrote again on birthright citizenship in a Jan. 5, 2011, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The article addressed an effort by a coalition of red state legislators in support of state-level laws to exclude undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship. It was subtitled, “Opponents of illegal immigration cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then propose policies that violate our Constitution.”

In that article, Ho reviewed the long history of legal and judicial support for the broad reach of birthright citizenship. As I reported this week, that included an 1898 Supreme Court decision upholding the citizenship of an American citizen of Chinese extraction, and Supreme Court rulings in 1982 and 1985 in which the court “unanimously agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a U.S. citizen,” as Ho wrote.

Now let’s fast-forward to Nov. 11, days after Trump’s reelection victory. In an interview published by Reason Magazine that Ho gave to conservative lawyer Josh Blackman — who himself supports birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants — Ho backtracked.

“Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion,” Ho stated. “No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be…. Everyone agrees that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to the children of lawful combatants. And it’s hard to see anyone arguing that unlawful combatants should be treated more favorably than lawful combatants.”

There’s a lot to unpack here, but Ho certainly seems to be conjuring up a redefinition of “illegal” or undocumented immigrants as “invaders.” He appears to find some equivalence between undocumented immigrants and “invading aliens.” Ho articulated this view in a concurring opinion in an appellate ruling in July that supported efforts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to have state officials block immigrants at the Texas border. Ho argued that Abbott’s assertion that Texas faced an “invasion” of illegal immigrants from Mexico deserved respect as a “good faith” description of conditions, and that the state arguably had the right to take matters into its own hands.

That’s a view in which Ho may be in a minority of one. In a 1996 case, a federal appeals court panel ruled that for a state to claim it’s being invaded, “it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government”—not a flow of individuals seeking jobs.

In his Reason interview, Ho’s definition of “unlawful combatants” is murky, but his free use of the term “invasion” conforms to the observation of legal scholar Rachel Rosenbloom that opposition to birthright citizenship is typically couched “in a highly racialized language of crisis and invasion.”

Why did Ho change his tune, if that’s what he’s done? Paul Blumenthal of Huffpost speculates that Ho’s “rewriting of his previous position on birthright citizenship can be best seen as his audition for the next open Supreme Court seat,” which is likely to be filled by Trump.

I asked Ho via a message to be forwarded to him by his chambers clerk to comment on that conjecture and to clarify his views on birthright citizenship, and how they might have been changed by rhetoric about an “invasion” of Texas or the U.S. by immigrants. He hasn’t replied.

Business

Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum named parks chief

Published

8 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum named parks chief

Disneyland Resort President Thomas Mazloum has been named chairman of Walt Disney Co.’s experiences division, the company said Tuesday.

Mazloum succeeds soon-to-be Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro as the head of the Mouse House’s vital parks portfolio, which has become the economic engine for the Burbank media and entertainment giant. His purview includes Disney’s theme parks, famed Imagineering division, merchandise, cruise line, as well as the Aulani resort and spa in Hawaii.

Jill Estorino will become the head of Disneyland Resort in Anaheim. She previously served as president and managing director of Disney Parks International and oversaw the company’s theme parks and resorts in Europe and Asia.

Estorino and Mazloum will assume their new roles on March 18, the same day as D’Amaro and incoming Disney President and Chief Creative Officer Dana Walden.

“Thomas Mazloum is an exceptional leader with a genuine appreciation for our cast members and a proven track record of delivering growth,” D’Amaro said in a statement. “His focus on service excellence, broad international leadership and strong connection to the creativity that brings our stories to life make him the right leader to guide Disney Experiences into its next chapter.”

Mazloum had been about a year into his tenure at Disneyland. Before that, he was head of Disney Signature Experiences, which includes the cruise line. He was trained in hospitality in Europe.

In his time at Disneyland, Mazloum oversaw the park’s 70th anniversary celebration and recently pledged to eliminate time limitations for park-hopping, which are designed to manage foot traffic at Disneyland and California Adventure.

Mazloum will now oversee a 10-year, $60-billion investment plan for Disney’s overall experiences business, which includes new themed lands in Disneyland Resort and Walt Disney World. At Disneyland, that expansion could result in at least $1.9 billion of development.

The size of that investment indicates how important the parks are to Disney’s bottom line. Last year, the experiences business brought in nearly 57% of the company’s operating income. Maintaining that momentum, as well as fending off competitors such as Universal Studios, is key to Disney’s continued growth.

In his new role, Mazloum will have to keep an eye on “international visitation headwinds” at its U.S.-based parks, which the company has said probably will factor into its earnings for its fiscal second quarter. At Disneyland Resort, that dip was mitigated by the park’s high percentage of California-based visitors.

Times staff writer Todd Martens contributed to this report.

Business

What soaring gas prices mean for California’s EV market

Published

20 hours ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

What soaring gas prices mean for California’s EV market

It has been a bumpy road for the electric vehicle market as declining federal support and plateauing public interest have eaten away at sales.

But EV sellers could soon receive a boost from an unexpected source: The war in Iran is pushing up gas prices.

As Americans look to save money at the pump, more will consider switching to an electric or hybrid vehicle. Average gas prices in the U.S. have risen nearly 17% since Feb. 28 to reach $3.48 per gallon. In California, the average is $5.20 per gallon.

Electric vehicles are pricier than gasoline-powered cars and charging them isn’t cheap with current electricity prices, but sky-high gas prices can tip the scales for consumers deciding which kind of vehicle to buy next.

“We probably will see an uptick in EV adoption and particularly hybrid adoption” if gas prices stay high, said Sam Abuelsamid, an auto analyst at Telemetry Agency. “The last time we had oil prices top $100 per barrel was early 2022 and that’s when we saw EV sales really start to pick up in the U.S.”

In a 2022 AAA survey, 77% of respondents said saving money on gas was their primary motivator for purchasing an electric vehicle. That year, 25% of survey respondents said they were likely or very likely to purchase an EV.

As oil prices cooled, the number fell to16% in 2025.

In California, annual sales of new light-duty zero-emission vehicles jumped 43% in 2022, according to the state’s Energy Commission. The market share of zero-emission vehicles among all light-duty vehicles sold rose from 12% in 2021 to 19% in 2022.

“Prior to 2022, we didn’t really have EVs available when we had oil price shocks,” Abuelsamid said. “But every time we did, it coincided with a move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.”

Dealers are anticipating a windfall.

Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Assn., predicted enthusiasm for EVs will rebound across California if oil prices don’t come down.

“If prior gasoline price spikes are any indication, you tend to see interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles,” he said.

Rising gas prices could be a lifeline for EV makers at a time when federal support for green cars has been declining.

Under President Trump, a federal $7,500 tax incentive for new electric vehicles was eliminated in September, along with a $4,000 incentive for used electric vehicles.

In California, the zero-emission vehicle share of the total new-vehicle market was 22% through the first 10 months of 2025, then dropped sharply to 12% in the last two months of the year, according to the California Auto Outlook.

Meanwhile Tesla, the most popular EV brand in the country, has grappled with an implosion of its reputation with some consumers after its chief executive, Elon Musk, became one of Trump’s most vocal supporters and helped run the controversial Department of Government Efficiency.

Over the last several months, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have pared back EV ambitions.

Other automakers, including Nissan, announced plans to stop producing their more affordable electric models.

The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal fuel economy standards and revoked California’s permission to implement a ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035.

David Reichmuth, a researcher with the Clean Transportation program in the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the shift in production plans will affect EV availability, even if demand surges.

That could keep people from switching to cleaner vehicles regardless of higher gas prices.

“This is a transition that we need to make for both public health and to try to slow the damage from global warming, whether or not the price of gasoline is $3 or $5 or $6 a gallon,” he said.

According to Cox Automotive, new EV sales nationally were down 41% in November from a year earlier. Used EV sales were down 14% year over year that month.

To be sure, oil prices can fluctuate wildly in times of uncertainty. It will take time for consumers to decide on new purchases.

Brian Kim, who manages used car sales at Ford of Downtown LA, said he has yet to see a jump in the number of people interested in EVs, hybrids or more fuel-efficient gas-powered engines.

Still, if the price at the pump stays stuck above its current level, it could happen soon.

“Once the gas prices hit six [dollars per gallon] or more and people feel it in their pocket, maybe things will start to change,” he said.

Business

Nearly 60 gigawatts of U.S. clean power stalled, trade group finds

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Nearly 60 gigawatts of U.S. clean power stalled, trade group finds

A total of 59 gigawatts of U.S. clean energy projects are facing delays at a time when demand for power from AI data centers is surging, according to a trade group study.

Developers are seeing an average delay of 19 months over issues such as long interconnection times, supply constraints and regulatory barriers, the American Clean Power Assn. said in a quarterly market report.

The backlog is happening despite the growing need for power on grids that are being taxed by energy-hungry data centers and increased manufacturing. The Trump administration has implemented a slew of policies to slow the build-out of solar and wind projects, including delaying approvals on federal lands.

The potential energy generation facing delays is the equivalent of 59 traditional nuclear reactors, enough to power more than 44 million homes simultaneously.

“Current policy instability is beginning to impact investor confidence and negatively impact project timelines at a time when demand is surging,” American Clean Power Chief Policy Officer JC Sandberg said in a statement.

Despite the hurdles, developers were able to bring more than 50 gigawatts of wind, solar and batteries online in 2025, accounting for more than 90% of all new power capacity in the U.S., the report found. Clean power purchase agreements declined 36% in 2025 compared with 2024, signaling that the build-out of clean power in the U.S. could be lower in the 2028 to 2030 time period, according to the report.

Chediak writes for Bloomberg.