Latest news with #AsylumSeekerAdvocacyProject
Mint
a day ago
- Politics
- Mint
Confusion and anxiety grips immigrant communities nationwide after US Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship
Confusion and anxiety gripped immigrant communities nationwide after the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, leaving pregnant asylum seekers like Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian in Houston, fearing her unborn child could become stateless, according to a Reuters report. "I don't understand it well," she admitted, voicing concerns that her September-born baby might lack Colombian citizenship if she can't add the child to her pending asylum case. Her panic reflects a broader uncertainty: The court's 6-3 decision curbed federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented or temporary-visa holders, but did not rule on the order's constitutionality. Instead, it triggered a 30-day countdown before the policy could take effect, during which lower courts must reconsider narrower ways to block it. Immigrant advocates reported a surge of calls from distraught parents-to-be, including a visa holder in Ohio terrified his child would be denied rights in a non-plaintiff state. "I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality," Lorena said, highlighting the humanitarian crisis brewing beneath all the legal chaos. The ruling's ambiguity centers on its potential to fracture citizenship rights state-by-state. While Trump's order remains blocked for plaintiffs like members of Maryland's CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, it could apply elsewhere after 30 days, creating what experts call an "unworkable patchwork." For instance, a baby born to undocumented parents in Louisiana (a non-plaintiff state) might be denied citizenship, while an identical birth in Massachusetts (a plaintiff state) would secure it. This disparity could force hospitals to act as de facto immigration enforcers, checking parents' statuses during childbirth. "Would individual doctors have to figure out how to determine citizenship?" asked Migration Policy Institute analyst Kathleen Bush-Joseph, as per Reuters. Trump, meanwhile, doubled down at a press conference, falsely claiming "hundreds of thousands" exploit birthright citizenship as a migration magnet. In a rapid response, advocacy groups filed class-action lawsuits to shield families nationwide. Within hours of the ruling, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project amended their Maryland lawsuit to seek certification for a nationwide class covering all children born after February 19, 2025, who'd be stripped of citizenship under Trump's order. "We're going to get protection for everyone," vowed lawyer William Powell, arguing class actions could achieve what universal injunctions no longer can. But hurdles persist: Joining these groups requires resources that many lack, and Republican-led states may still enforce the policy during litigation. Betsy, a Virginia teen and CASA member whose undocumented parents migrated from El Salvador, fears targeting 'innocent kids who haven't even been born.' Meanwhile, Democratic attorneys general in 22 states signaled they'll argue in lower courts that only nationwide injunctions prevent bureaucratic chaos, like tracking parents who cross state lines to give birth. As Honduran asylum seeker Nivida fielded panicked calls from pregnant friends in Louisiana, she echoed a community's plea: "Is the baby going to be a citizen?" With the Supreme Court likely to revisit the order's constitutionality this fall, the clock ticks toward a fragmented America.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration's ban on birthright citizenship, in a ruling that could strip federal judges of a power they've used to obstruct many of Trump's orders nationwide. The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country's more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states. Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear, despite Trump claiming a 'giant win'. To stymie the impact of the ruling, immigration aid groups have rushed to recalibrate their legal strategy to block Trump's policy ending birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups including Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap) – who filed one of several original lawsuits challenging the president's executive order – are asking a federal judge in Maryland for an emergency block on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They have also refiled their broader lawsuit challenging the policy as a class-action case, seeking protections for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live. 'We're confident this will prevent this administration from attempting to selectively enforce their heinous executive order,' said George Escobar, chief of programs and services at Casa. 'These are scary times, but we are not powerless, and we have shown in the past, and we continue to show that when we fight, we win.' The decision on Friday morning decided by six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and judicial oversight. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll back judicial constraints on executive power. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority's decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven't filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected. 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Jackson wrote. 'Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th amendment following the US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court's 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. The ruling will undoubtedly exacerbate the fear and uncertainty many expecting mothers and immigrant families across the US have felt since the administration first attempt to end birthright citizenship. Liza, one of several expecting mothers who was named as plaintiff in the case challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy, said she had since given birth to a 'happy and healthy' baby, who was born a US citizen thanks to the previous, nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order. But she and her husband, both Russian nationals who fear persecution in their home country, still feel unsettled. 'We remain worried, even now that one day the government could still try to take away our child's US citizenship,' she said at a press conference on Friday. 'I have worried a lot about whether the government could try to detain or deport our baby. At some point, the executive order made us feel as though our baby was considered a nobody.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy. 'The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining was that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that 'birthright citizenship remains the law of the land'. 'We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington state, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 'For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.' Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts had not specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. Reuters contributed reporting
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Birthright citizenship plaintiffs make new push to block Trump's order nationwide
A group of plaintiffs challenging President Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions quickly made a new push to block it nationwide, following the Supreme Court's decision Friday. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the high court's conservative majority curtailed federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. But it left the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits. Within hours, a group of plaintiffs suing in Maryland jumped on the suggestion, asking a district judge to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. 'Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails,' the motion reads. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' it continues. The motion was filed by CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and several expectant mothers who filed one of the original lawsuits challenging Trump's executive order. The request will go to U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of former President Biden. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
2 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
New birthright citizenship challenges filed in wake of Supreme Court ruling
Two immigrants rights organization suing over President Trump's birthright citizenship order recast their lawsuit as a class action following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday. The big picture: The high court imposed new limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies — specifically, Trump's effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S. But the order left room for broader relief through the filing of class action lawsuits. Driving the news: Following the ruling Friday, the plaintiffs — CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and a group of expectant mothers — asked a federal judge in Maryland to block Trump's executive order attacking birthright citizenship. "Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails," the complaint states. The Supreme Court indicated in its Friday order that class action lawsuits are among the permitted methods to block federal government policy. "Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict," the suit states. Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office this year, seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents and undocumented immigrants. The order was quickly met with legal challenges, which resulted in temporary blocks on the order's enforcement nationwide. Trump's DOJ asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of those orders, and the high court on Friday imposed such limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies. CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Birthright citizenship plaintiffs make new push to block Trump's order nationwide
A group of plaintiffs challenging President Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions quickly made a new push to block it nationwide, following the Supreme Court's decision Friday. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the high court's conservative majority curtailed federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. But it left the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits. Within hours, a group of plaintiffs suing in Maryland jumped on the suggestion, asking a district judge to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. 'Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails,' the motion reads. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' it continues. The motion was filed by CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and several expectant mothers who filed one of the original lawsuits challenging Trump's executive order. The request will go to U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of former President Biden.
