Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Directive Suspended in Class-Action Litigation
Judge Joseph Laplante conferred class-action status to any child potentially affected by the denial of citizenship under Trump’s mandate.
On Thursday, a federal judge impeded President Donald Trump’s directive constricting birthright citizenship, as adversaries of the policy pursue alternative legal strategies following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of an earlier impediment.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority rendered a pivotal decision in late June, curtailing the capacity of individual judges to impose nationwide injunctions against presidential policies.
Several judges had previously obstructed Trump’s endeavor to terminate the longstanding principle, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, that anyone born on American soil is inherently an American citizen.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court permitted the possibility of orders being obstructed through comprehensive class-action lawsuits against the government.
Trump’s adversaries swiftly initiated new class-action suits aiming to impede the executive order once more.
On Thursday, Judge Joseph Laplante of the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire accorded class-action status to any child potentially deprived of citizenship due to Trump’s directive.
The judge instituted a preliminary suspension of the order as legal proceedings continue.
The judge deferred his ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration to file an appeal.
Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who advocated the case, heralded the ruling as a “significant triumph” that “will safeguard the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended.”
Trump’s executive order stipulates that children born to parents residing illegally in the United States or on temporary visas would not automatically acquire citizenship — a profound reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
His administration contends that the 14th Amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, pertains to the rights of former slaves rather than the progeny of undocumented migrants or temporary U.S. visitors.
The Supreme Court dismissed such a constricted interpretation in a landmark 1898 case.
The current high court, with a conservative majority of 6-3, refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order last month, addressing solely the matter of nationwide injunctions.
It nevertheless authorized the order to proceed but postponed its enactment until late July to facilitate new judicial challenges.
Several lower courts, in issuing their previous injunctions, had adjudicated that the executive order contravened the Constitution.
