[ad_1]
A federal judge in New Hampshire said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s executive order will certify and issue a preliminary injunction blocking a class action lawsuit involving all children ending innate citizenship.
Judge Joseph Laplante announced his decision after an hour of hearing, saying the written order would follow. The order includes a seven-day stay to grant appeals, he said.
The judge’s decision will return to the Supreme Court, putting the issue of high-class citizenship on a quick trajectory. The judiciary will be asked last month to control whether the order is complying with a decision to limit its authority to issue a national injunction.
The class is slightly smaller than what the plaintiff sought, originally including his parents as plaintiffs.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and a toddler. It denies denials citizenship to people born to parents who are illegal or temporarily residing in the United States, among many cases challenging Trump’s January order. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.
“Ten thousands of babies and their parents could be exposed to countless harms in the order in a few weeks and now they need an injunction,” the plaintiff’s lawyer wrote in court documents filed Tuesday.
At issue is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, where “everyone born or naturalized in the United States is subject to that jurisdiction and is a citizen of the United States.” The Trump administration says that the phrase “object of that jurisdiction” means that the United States can illegally deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country, and ends what has been considered an essential part of US law for over a century.
“The previous misinfection of the citizenship clause created evil incentives for illegal immigrants that had a negative impact on the country’s sovereignty, national security and economic stability,” a government lawyer wrote in a New Hampshire case.
Laplante, who issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said he did not consider the government’s arguments to be frivolous, but he felt they were immovable. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call,” and that stripping of U.S. citizenship would clearly be irreparable harm.
Several federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to stop Trump’s orders from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court restricted those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days of action. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try and block it.
In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judge asked the parties to write a brief explaining the effectiveness of the Supreme Court decision. Washington and other states in its case have asked the Court of Appeals to return the case to a lower court judge.
Like New Hampshire, Maryland plaintiffs seek to organize class action lawsuits that include everyone affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal debate as he considers a request for another national injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigration rights group.
Hours after the Supreme Court ruled that it would block a national court injunction, advocacy groups filed a temporary restraining order to prevent President Donald Trump’s natural citizenship from taking effect.
Ama Frimpong, director of legal affairs at CASA, said the group emphasized to members and clients that it’s not a time of panic.
“No one needs to move the state at this moment,” she said. “There are various paths where we are all fighting again to make sure this executive order doesn’t actually see the light of day.”
The New Hampshire plaintiff is mentioned by pseudonyms alone, and a Honduras woman has filed for pending asylum and is due to have a fourth child in October. She told the court that her family came to the United States after being targeted by the gang.
“I don’t want my children to live in hiding because of fear. I don’t want my children to be targeted for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I’m worried that our family will be at risk of separation.”
Another plaintiff, a Brazilian man, has lived with his Florida wife for five years. Their first child was born in March and is in the process of applying for a legal, permanent status based on family ties. His wife’s father is a US citizen.
“My baby has American citizenship and future rights,” he writes.
[ad_2]Source link
