Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship suffered a courtroom defeat on Thursday as a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the controversial executive order nationwide and certified a sweeping class-action lawsuit that could protect tens of thousands of children.
Ruling from the bench on Thursday, Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order would follow. The judge, an appointee of George W Bush, said a written order would follow later in the day, with a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.
The decision is a test case following a recent supreme court ruling that restricted nationwide injunctions, in effect making class-action lawsuits the primary remaining method for district court judges to halt policy implementation across large areas of the country. It delivers a legal blow to the administration’s hardline immigration agenda and ramps up a constitutional dispute that has continued through the first six months of Trump’s second term.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It is among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to undocumented parents living in the US or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.
“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,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed on Tuesday.
At issue is the US constitution’s 14th amendment, which states: “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” allows the US to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented women in the country illegally, seeking to overturn the established practice that people born in the United States automatically receive citizenship, irrespective of their parents’ immigration circumstances.
“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,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.
LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he did not consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of US citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.
Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the US supreme court limited those injunctions in a 27 June ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.
In a Washington state case before the ninth US circuit court of appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the supreme court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.
As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from Casa, a non-profit immigrant rights organization.
Ama Frimpong, the legal director at Casa, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.
“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “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, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the US after being targeted by gangs.
“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”
Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties – his wife’s father is a US citizen.
“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.
