A federal judge in New Hampshire has temporarily blocked US President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship in the United States, calling the move “lawless, unconstitutional and cruel.”
Judge Joseph LaPlante announced on Thursday that he would certify a class action lawsuit covering all children who would be affected by the order, and issue a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.
The written ruling, he said, will follow shortly and include a seven-day stay to allow the federal government to appeal.
The class certified by the court is slightly narrower than what the plaintiffs initially proposed, excluding parents from the group. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates, represented a pregnant woman, two parents, and their newborns.
The case is one of several challenging Trump’s January order, which denies automatic US citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants or those in the country on temporary visas, AP reported.
At the center of the legal fight is the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which grants citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of people living in the US illegally, a position that, if upheld, would overturn over a century of settled legal interpretation.
In court filings, government lawyers claimed that previous interpretations of the citizenship clause had created a “perverse incentive” for illegal immigration, harming the country’s sovereignty and security.
Judge LaPlante, who previously issued a narrower injunction in a related case, said the government’s arguments were not frivolous but ultimately unconvincing. “This was not a close call,” he said, adding that stripping children of their citizenship posed “clear and irreparable harm.”
Plaintiffs’ lawyer Cody Wofsy said the ruling would bring relief to countless families who had been left confused and frightened by the executive order. This “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.
Several federal judges had earlier issued nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s order from taking effect. However, a US Supreme Court ruling on 27 June curtailed those injunctions, giving lower courts a 30-day window to respond. In light of that deadline, opponents swiftly returned to court in an effort to block the order once again.
In Washington state, the 9th circuit court of appeals has asked both sides to explain how the Supreme Court’s decision affects ongoing challenges.
CASA’s legal director Ama Frimpong urged everyone to remain calm and said that it is not time to panic.
“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said, adding, “there's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”
The New Hampshire plaintiffs, who were anonymised in court documents, include a Honduran woman with a pending asylum claim, expecting her fourth child in October. She said she fled with her family to escape gangs targeting them.
“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”
Another plaintiff, a Brazilian man living in Florida, said his US-born baby deserved the right to citizenship. He and his wife are seeking permanent legal status through her father, a US citizen.
“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he said.
Judge Joseph LaPlante announced on Thursday that he would certify a class action lawsuit covering all children who would be affected by the order, and issue a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.
The written ruling, he said, will follow shortly and include a seven-day stay to allow the federal government to appeal.
The class certified by the court is slightly narrower than what the plaintiffs initially proposed, excluding parents from the group. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates, represented a pregnant woman, two parents, and their newborns.
The case is one of several challenging Trump’s January order, which denies automatic US citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants or those in the country on temporary visas, AP reported.
At the center of the legal fight is the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which grants citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of people living in the US illegally, a position that, if upheld, would overturn over a century of settled legal interpretation.
In court filings, government lawyers claimed that previous interpretations of the citizenship clause had created a “perverse incentive” for illegal immigration, harming the country’s sovereignty and security.
Judge LaPlante, who previously issued a narrower injunction in a related case, said the government’s arguments were not frivolous but ultimately unconvincing. “This was not a close call,” he said, adding that stripping children of their citizenship posed “clear and irreparable harm.”
Plaintiffs’ lawyer Cody Wofsy said the ruling would bring relief to countless families who had been left confused and frightened by the executive order. This “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.
Several federal judges had earlier issued nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s order from taking effect. However, a US Supreme Court ruling on 27 June curtailed those injunctions, giving lower courts a 30-day window to respond. In light of that deadline, opponents swiftly returned to court in an effort to block the order once again.
In Washington state, the 9th circuit court of appeals has asked both sides to explain how the Supreme Court’s decision affects ongoing challenges.
CASA’s legal director Ama Frimpong urged everyone to remain calm and said that it is not time to panic.
“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said, adding, “there's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”
The New Hampshire plaintiffs, who were anonymised in court documents, include a Honduran woman with a pending asylum claim, expecting her fourth child in October. She said she fled with her family to escape gangs targeting them.
“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”
Another plaintiff, a Brazilian man living in Florida, said his US-born baby deserved the right to citizenship. He and his wife are seeking permanent legal status through her father, a US citizen.
“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he said.
You may also like
Gregg Wallace
Gregg Wallace sparks fury after linking his autism to misconduct allegations
Pay or apologize: Mahmoud Khalil seeks $20 million from Trump administration, will share money with...
Maya Jama fiercely tells off Love Island star over 'unnecessary' comment
Mohammed Kudus shows true colours with four-word statement after £55m Tottenham transfer
