Donald Trump's birthright citizenship limits blocked again by judge

President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting automatic birthright citizenship was temporarily blocked again by a federal judge in a class-action lawsuit by a civil rights group, reinstating protections that were paused last month by the US Supreme Court.

 

A preliminary injunction was granted Thursday by US Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire, restricting enforcement of Trump’s order while the case proceeds. The judge also agreed to provisionally certify the case as a class-action lawsuit representing all affected babies and parents.

 

Trump’s order, part of a broad crackdown on immigration, would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a “perverse” loophole that encourages illegal immigration.

 

 

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, who argued the case, said in a statement.

 

The White House didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment. Laplante put his injunction on hold for seven days to allow for an appeal.

Parallel cases

The birthright citizenship order was initially put on hold months ago in three parallel cases, blocking it nationwide. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can’t issue such “universal injunctions” that block federal policies outright. 

 

The Supreme Court returned the cases to the lower courts for judges to weigh whether their injunctions need to be narrowed or amended such that they only provide relief to plaintiffs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, signaled class-action lawsuits would be one way to get far-reaching relief during a lawsuit, while other justices signaled there should nevertheless still be a high bar for certifying such cases.

 

The Supreme Court placed a 30-day hold on enforcement of Trump’s order, meaning it will be allowed to take effect July 27 if there are no injunctions in place. Judges in all three cases have been weighing arguments after the plaintiffs tweaked their legal strategies in light of the high court’s ruling.

 

The ACLU filed a new lawsuit after the Supreme Court’s ruling and requested class-action status for all babies born after Feb. 20 who would be affected by Trump’s executive order, as well as their parents.

 

A judge in Maryland is weighing a similar case. Democratic-led states that filed a third case in Massachusetts have argued the Supreme Court’s ruling should have no impact on their nationwide injunction because of the nature of their lawsuit.

‘Injunction Now’

Laplante, who previously blocked Trump’s order in February, heard fresh arguments Thursday. The ACLU said in a filing this week that “tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now.”

 

The US Justice Department last week argued in court filings last week against new injunctions. The US argued that the birthright concept, found in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, was intended only to correct a “shameful” 1857 Supreme Court decision that permanently excluded people of African descent from US citizenship.

 

“Prior misimpressions of the Citizenship Clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” the US said in a July 3 filing.