By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled to certify a class-action lawsuit and issue a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This ruling, which will protect all children affected by the order, follows a Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions and gave lower courts a deadline to act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman and parents of infants, challenges the executive order’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The judge found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and determined that the deprivation of U.S. citizenship would cause irreparable harm.
Read the original article here
Federal judge to pause Trump’s birthright citizenship order, and it seems like things are already heating up. The core issue here is a judicial decision to temporarily halt an order that would have potentially altered the long-standing practice of birthright citizenship. Now, the news is that Judge Joseph LaPlante, after a hearing, has announced a pause, although a written order and a seven-day stay to allow for appeals are yet to come. It’s a holding pattern, to be sure, and it sets the stage for a legal battle.
What’s truly at stake is more than just a legal technicality; it’s about the fundamental rights enshrined in the 14th Amendment. The idea that any executive, regardless of who, could unilaterally declare someone “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States should be a significant cause for concern. It’s a crucial point: birthright citizenship, the right of anyone born within the U.S. to be a citizen, is a constitutional right, not something that can be casually discarded.
And here’s a crucial piece of context: this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, is likely to become involved. The question isn’t whether Trump will appeal, but how the Supreme Court will rule. There’s a lot of concern that SCOTUS, as it currently stands, might not uphold the judge’s pause. Some people are predicting the Court will find ways to justify reversing this ruling, perhaps even creating new arguments that weren’t explicitly present before. It’s a legal high-wire act.
The debate also touches on the definition of “jurisdiction.” If you’re not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, then, by definition, the laws of the United States don’t apply to you. This highlights the potential ripple effects and unforeseen consequences of such an order, which, by the way, opens doors for the sovereign citizen crowd. The fact that the judge’s order is a nationwide injunction is also relevant, since it was refiled as a class action lawsuit, which is what allows for such a broad effect.
And, of course, the subject of the class action itself is vital to note. The focus is on children, not their parents. The parents’ citizenship status is generally already established. This highlights the direct impact on a specific group: children born under the new order. This lawsuit is brought by the ACLU. Supporting the ACLU is a good step for those who want to help defend the rights of people.
Also important to note: Some of the rules are complicated. A proposed amendment that would have prevented judges from issuing injunctions without a bond was removed. That’s why this judge was able to act. The legal landscape is filled with nuances, precedents, and potential interpretations that vary widely.
Overall, there is a palpable sense of anticipation and a wariness about what the future holds. The belief is that the courts are the main barrier to protecting this key constitutional right. No matter what happens, we are not going to stop here. It’s a reminder of the importance of the checks and balances in our system, even if it seems like those checks aren’t always working the way they should.