New Hampshire judge to hear arguments on class action against Trump's birthright citizenship order
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'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. 'The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to … the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.'
Advertisement
Legal battles continue in multiple states
Several federal judges have 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.
New Jersey and the more than dozen states joining its case in Massachusetts federal court have asked the judge to determine if the nationwide injunction in their case could still apply under the high court's ruling. The judge has scheduled a hearing for July 18.
'Everybody knows there's a 30-day clock, so our hope is that we get an answer prior to the end of the 30-day clock,' New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin told The Associated Press in a recent interview.
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, the plaintiff in a 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.'
Advertisement
New Hampshire plaintiffs include parents, babies
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.
Catalini reported from Trenton, New Jersey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Here's where all the legal cases against Trump stand since his return to the White House
Before he battled his way back to the White House, President Donald Trump was in court battling a slew of civil lawsuits and criminal charges that threatened to upend his finances and take away his freedom. Those cases have mostly abated since his return to office, albeit with some loose ends. On Thursday, Donald Trump declared 'total victory' after an appeals court threw out a massive financial penalty in New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit alleging that he exaggerated his wealth and the value of marquee assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. Other punishments affecting Trump's business still apply, but they can be paused pending further appeals. Since Trump's reelection in November, four separate criminal cases — including his hush money conviction and allegations of election interference and illegally hoarding classified documents — have either been dropped, resolved or put aside. On the civil side, several high-profile lawsuits against Trump have been quietly working their way through the appeals process. Here's a look at some of Trump's criminal and civil cases and where they stand now: New York Hush Money Case Trump became the first former U.S. president convicted of felonies when a New York jury found him guilty in May 2024 of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex. Though Trump could have faced jail time, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan in January sentenced him instead to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him any punishment. Trump is appealing the conviction. Trump was set to take office just days later, and Merchan said he had to respect Trump's upcoming legal protections as president, even wishing him 'Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.' Georgia Election Interference Case In August 2023, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others with participating in a scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Willis cited Trump's January 2021 phone call to Georgia's secretary of state, an effort to replace Georgia's Democratic presidential electors with ones who would vote for Trump, harassment of a Fulton County election worker and the unauthorized copying of data and software from elections equipment. But the case stalled over revelations Willis had been in a relationship with the man she appointed to prosecute it. A state appeals court in December removed Willis from the case. She has appealed that decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, but even if the high court takes the case and decides in her favor, it's unlikely she can pursue criminal charges against Trump while he's in office. Federal Election Case Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in August 2023 with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to President Joe Biden in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Prosecutors allege Trump and his allies knowingly pushed election fraud lies to push state officials to overturn Biden's win and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes. But Smith moved to drop the case after Trump won reelection in November. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution. Classified Documents Case In a separate prosecution, Smith charged Trump in June 2023 with illegally retaining classified documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back. Prosecutors filed additional charges the following month, accusing Trump of showing a Pentagon 'plan of attack' to visitors at his golf club in New Jersey. Smith also moved to drop that case after Trump's election victory. Sexual Assaults Lawsuits In May 2023, a federal jury found that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. In January 2024, a second jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages for comments Trump had made about her while he was president, finding that they were defamatory. Trump is appealing that decision. He also appealed the first jury decision, but a federal appeals court in December upheld it and then declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. New York Civil Fraud Lawsuit On Thursday, a five-judge panel of New York's mid-level Appellate Division overturned Trump's whopping monetary penalty in James' lawsuit while narrowly endorsing a lower court's finding that he engaged in fraud by padding his wealth on financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. The judges ruled that the penalty — which soared to $515 million with interest tacked on each day — violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on excessive fines. At the same time, they left in place other punishments, including a bans on Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, and the upheld punishments can be paused until that court rules.
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. ___
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows Trump's cuts to National Institutes of Health grants over DEI policies
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Trump administration cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the federal government's campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion policies. But in a mixed decision the court left in place a different part of the lower court judge's ruling that threw out the administration's guidance document that introduced the policy, raising questions about whether it can be applied moving forward. The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted in part an emergency request filed by the administration seeking to put a Massachusetts-based federal judge's ruling on hold. The court did not fully explain its reasoning, but the majority indicated that groups seeking to challenge the funding cuts have to file separate lawsuits in a different federal venue — the Court of Federal Claims. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to be the deciding vote in crafting the mixed decision. Four justices, all conservatives, said they would have granted the Trump administration's application in full, while four others — conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberals — would have denied it in full. "As today's order states, the District Court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims," Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion. But, she added, "the Government is not entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance documents." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that receives billions of dollars from Congress to fund medical research at universities, hospitals and other institutions. When President Donald Trump took office in January, he vowed to end so-called diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies, saying that rather than fostering equality as intended, they are a form of discrimination, primarily against white people. He has also taken aim at policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care. The NIH then conducted a review of grants and determined that more than 1,700 of them were not consistent with Trump's directives and terminated them, including studies into HIV prevention and gender identity among teens. The moves were challenged by 16 states led by Massachusetts and the American Public Health Association, among others. After a trial, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts ruled that the government had failed to follow correct legal processes in implementing the policy, in violation of a law called the Administrative Procedure Act. In rushing to implement Trump's agenda, NIH "simply moved too fast and broke things, including the law," Young wrote. He also said that DEI was "an undefined enemy," noting that government lawyers had not been able to explain exactly what it meant. Young found that there was "pervasive racial discrimination" and "extensive discrimination" against gay, lesbian and transgender people in how grants were selected for termination. He also found "an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues." Young declined to put his ruling on hold, as did the Boston-based 1st U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which also kept the grants intact. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the case is similar to another that arose in Massachusetts in which a judge blocked Trump administration plans to terminate teacher training grants on anti-DEI grounds. The Supreme Court in April blocked that ruling on a 5-4 vote. "This application presents a particularly clear case for this court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this court's rulings," Sauer wrote. Lawyers for the states pushed back on Sauer's narrative, saying it "bears little resemblance to reality, with Young's ruling a "run-of-the mill" example of a court intervening when the government violates the law. There is no need for Supreme Court intervention because there is no emergency, they added. "The only unlawful decisions here are the federal government's. And the only urgency is that manufactured by NIH in its haste to implement its unprecedented and unreasoned policies," the lawyers wrote. The Trump administration has regularly turned to the Supreme Court when its broad use of executive power is challenged in court and has prevailed in the majority of cases. Trump and his allies have also harshly criticized judges who have ruled against him. This article was originally published on
