birthright citizenship order

BOSTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed, but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states affected by the birthright citizenship order Social Security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are affected and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging, which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

CONCORD, N.H. — A federal judge in New Hampshire said Thursday he will certify a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected by President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and issue a preliminary injunction blocking it.

Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow. The order will include a seven-day stay to allow for appeal, he said.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who originally included parents as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the 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 says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“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 didn’t 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 U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and his team have been inundated by families who are confused and fearful about the executive order, he said. Thursday’s ruling “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.

Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 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 9th U.S. 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 nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, 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 U.S. 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 U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Ramer and Catalini write for the Associated Press. Catalini reported from Trenton, N.J.