Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked Again Nationwide

Topline

A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, stopping the policy from taking effect later this month and circumventing a Supreme Court ruling that limited how courts can block Trump policies nationwide.

President Donald Trump listens as African Leaders deliver remarks at the White House on July 9.

Getty Images

Key Facts

New Hampshire-based Judge Joseph Laplante ruled during a hearing Thursday to block Trump’s executive order, which broadly bars children born in the U.S. from getting citizenship if their parents are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

The policy was slated to take effect July 27 after the Supreme Court invalidated the previous court orders pausing it, with justices ruling last month lower federal judges cannot issue sweeping orders that block policies nationwide.

The Supreme Court did specify several carveouts that parties can use to still get policies blocked, however, such as bringing cases as class-action lawsuits that prohibit the Trump administration from enforcing a policy against a specific group—which is what plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship case did.

Laplante certified the case as a class action lawsuit, meaning the Trump administration cannot enforce the executive order against any child born in the U.S. who would be subject to the new policy, which has the same effect as barring the policy nationwide.

The judge said Thursday issuing the order blocking the policy was “not a close call,” Reuters reports, saying the fact that children could be denied citizenship if the policy takes effect constituted “irreparable harm” because citizenship “is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

The judge did reject the plaintiffs’ request to also include parents in the class-action group, however, limiting it only to children born after Feb. 20 whose parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents at the time of their birth.

What To Watch For

Laplante’s order will not take effect for seven days in order to give the Trump administration a chance to appeal his ruling, which the government is likely to do. There are also still other lawsuits pending over the birthright citizenship order, in which plaintiffs are similarly trying to get class-action status in order to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling, so more court rulings against the policy may soon follow.

Chief Critic

The White House has not yet responded to a request for comment, but the administration continued to defend the birthright citizenship order prior to Thursday’s hearing. “The Trump Administration is committed to lawfully implementing the President’s Executive Order to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship and which restores the Fourteenth Amendment to its original intent,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC News.

Crucial Quote

“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” Cody Wofsy, who argued the plaintiff’s case as deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, said in a statement Thursday.

Is Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Legal?

While the Supreme Court ruled on whether courts can block the birthright citizenship order nationwide, the court did not make any judgment on whether the order itself is legal, and that question is still playing out in court. Lower court judges and many legal experts have argued the order is likely illegal, with Maryland-based Judge Deborah L. Boardman ruling in February that the policy “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.” The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” which has long been used to provide citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with only limited exemptions for cases like children of foreign diplomats. The Trump administration has adopted a fringe legal theory claiming the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause means immigrants are excluded under the law, though many legal experts have previously discredited that argument.

Key Background

Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship was one of the first executive orders the president issued after taking office in January, sparking one of the first legal battles of his second term. Multiple lower court judges blocked the policy nationwide, with appeals courts agreeing, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate them by broadly ruling that lower judges cannot block Trump’s policies nationwide. The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on June 27 in a 6-3 decision, which has been broadly expected to narrow many existing orders against Trump policies and make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge the administration in court. Laplante’s ruling is one of several cases since the Supreme Court’s June ruling in which judges have blocked Trump’s policies despite the Supreme Court order, however, using exemptions such as class-action lawsuits or halting policies under the Administrative Procedure Act, which gives courts broad power to determine actions by federal agencies are unlawful. A judge in Rhode Island blocked changes at the Department of Health and Human Services under the Administrative Procedure Act, for instance, and a judge in Washington D.C. used the law to stop changes at the U.S. African Development Foundation.