[ad_1]
Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
Hours after the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a major victory on Friday, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a new class action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court, with lower courts likely to issue national injunctions only in limited circumstances. Aiming for President Donald Trump’s January executive order, he redefines his qualifications for US citizenship at birth.
The judge’s 6-3 ruling leaf opens the question of how the sentence applies to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, but Friday’s lawsuit charges that if the mother is illegal or temporary in the country, she is not a US citizen or father, she violates the constitution by denialing citizenship to a child born in US soil.
The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU in New Hampshire, the ACLU in Maine, the ACLU of Maine, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Legal Caucus, and the Democracy Advocates Fund. It seeks to represent the proposed class of children born under the conditions of the executive order and their parents.
Reversing our birthright citizenship will have a dramatic negative impact, defenders warn
President Donald Trump will answer questions at a press conference on the recent Supreme Court decision in the White House briefing room on Friday. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
This is not the first legal challenge to policy. The same group filed another lawsuit in the same court on behalf of advocacy groups in January 2025, along with members hoping for a child to be denied citizenship under the order. The case led to a decision protecting members of these groups and is currently pending before the First Circuit Court, with oral discussion scheduled for August 1st.
Scotus’ ruling on Friday said lower courts would no longer be able to block federal policies nationwide unless it is absolutely necessary to provide full relief to those suing. The decision doesn’t say whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means that the order could take effect in some parts of the country while the legal challenge continues. The court gave the lower court for 30 days to consider the existing judgment.
“The application will not be filed – therefore we will not address – the question of whether the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. “The question before us is one of the remedies: whether federal courts have the fair authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789?”
“While a universal injunction could only be justified as an exercise of fair power, Congress did not grant such power to federal courts,” she added.
Supreme Court takes on citizenship by nature: Liberals alk over Trump debate to end national injunction
President Donald Trump, joined by Attorney General Pam Bondy and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, has recently worked on a Supreme Court decision with members of the press in the White House briefing room on Friday in Washington, D.C. (Joe Laidle/Getty Images)
Judge Sonia Sotomayor in dissent suggested that plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative.
“Nevertheless, it is recommended that parents of children subject to citizenship orders file a prompt class action lawsuit and request temporary injunctive relief for pending class certification,” writes Sotomayor. “For cases that challenge policies that are as blatantly illegal and harmful as citizenship orders, it would be wise for lower courts to act promptly on such a request for relief and award the case as soon as possible to allow for a prompt review of this court.”
The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship “America’s most basic promise” and claims that the executive order threatens to create a “permanent, multi-generational subclass” of children.
“The Supreme Court decision did not suggest that this is not the case remotely. We are fighting to prevent President Trump from trampling on the citizenship of one child,” said Cody Woffsey, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigration rights project and lead lawyer for the case.
Media members will be standing in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on the final day of this semester on Friday. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“This executive order is directly opposed to our constitution, values and history,” added Devon Chaffey, executive director of the ACLU in New Hampshire. “Of the people born in our country, we cannot decide which politicians deserve citizenship.”
The lawsuit cites the 14th amendment, providing that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, but subject to their jurisdiction.” It also mentions the 1898 Supreme Court decision in the US vs. Wong Kim Ark.
Plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is hoping for her fourth child, fearing that the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the US
The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-CV-244, filed in US District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
“Trump’s executive order directly opposes our constitution, values and history, which will create a permanent, multi-generational subclass of those who have been born in the United States but are denied full rights,” said Sangyob Kim of New Hampshire’s ACLU in January.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“Today’s historic decision led to the decisive rejection of President Trump of the weaponized law president and endured a leftist activist judge who tried to deny the president’s constitutional authority,” White House spokesman Liz Houston wrote to Fox News Digital.
“President Trump continues to implement America’s first agenda and the Trump administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and make America safe again.”
Breanne Deppisch of Fox News Digital contributed to this report.
[ad_2]Source link
