Latest news with #JosephLaplante
The Herald Scotland
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Appeals court says Trump birthright citizenship EO unconstitutional
"The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the ruling reads. The lawsuit was filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon in response to Trump's day-one executive order. The opinion follows a July 10 ruling made by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante that barred enforcement of the order after immigrant rights advocates filed a class action lawsuit in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. This is a developing story.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said. This article was originally published on
NBC News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. A 'viable' legal challenge But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said.
Japan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling
A federal judge on Thursday again barred U.S. President Donald Trump's administration from denying citizenship to some babies born in the U.S., making use of an exception to overcome the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block that and other policies nationwide. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled at a hearing in Concord, New Hampshire, after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any children whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's executive order curtailing automatic birthright citizenship. The ruling is far from the last word in the legal battle over Trump's order, which he signed in January on his first day back in office. The judge paused his ruling for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal, which a Justice Department lawyer at the hearing indicated would certainly happen. Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, agreed the plaintiffs could provisionally proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally. Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union had urged him to do so after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling narrowing three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive. The Supreme Court's decision meant babies born in some parts of the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents risked being denied citizenship and becoming subject to deportation. But the ruling contained an exception for class-action lawsuits that seek relief on behalf of a group of similarly situated people nationwide. Laplante, who had already in a related case concluded Trump's order was unconstitutional, said the question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," as children could be deprived of citizenship by Trump's order, which was set to take effect on July 27 following the Supreme Court's ruling. "That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said during the hearing. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy hailed the decision, telling reporters that the Supreme Court's ruling had sparked "concern, confusion and fear" among migrant families whose babies would be affected by Trump's order. "This is going to protect every single child throughout the country from this lawless, unconstitutional, cruel executive order," he said. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement called the ruling "an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief." "This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures," he said. "The Trump administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.' Trump's order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs in various cases challenging it. At the urging of 22 Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates, four judges including Laplante earlier in the year issued injunctions blocking its enforcement after finding it likely violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The judges have pointed to the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in which it interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents. Three judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington issued injunctions halting Trump's order nationwide. Laplante in February issued an injunction too, but unlike his counterparts limited it to members of the three immigrant rights nonprofit organizations who pursued the case before him. The Supreme Court's decision concerned only the three nationwide judicial orders, whose scope the justices ordered lower courts to reconsider after finding judges lack the authority to issue what are known as "universal injunctions" that cover people who are not parties to the lawsuit before the judge. Although the Trump administration hailed the ruling as a major victory, federal judges have continued to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of Trump's agenda found to be unlawful. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision for the court, made clear that it did not prevent plaintiffs from obtaining essentially the same type of relief as provided in a nationwide injunction by instead bringing class action lawsuits that seek to represent all similarly situated people, among other exceptions. Seizing on that language, immigrant rights advocates within hours of the decision launched two proposed class actions that same day, including the one before Laplante, who on Thursday noted his prior discomfort with issuing a nationwide injunction. "It's a better process to narrow these decisions and not have judges create national policy," he said. Laplante described class action litigation as "fairly routine," though he noted that conservative Justice Samuel Alito in the birthright ruling reminded judges to be "rigorous" when analyzing whether class action status could be granted. "That said, the Supreme Court suggested a class action is a better option," he said.
Malay Mail
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
US birthright citizenship protected — for now — as judge pauses Trump's executive order
WASHINGTON, July 11 — A federal judge yesterday halted President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, as opponents of the policy pursue a new legal avenue following the US Supreme Court's overturning of a previous block. The high court's conservative majority delivered a landmark decision in late June that limits the ability of individual judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidents' policies. Several such judges had in fact blocked Trump's attempt to end the longstanding rule, guaranteed in the US Constitution, that anyone born on US soil is automatically an American citizen. However, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that orders could be blocked via broad class-action suits against the government. Trump's opponents quickly filed new class-action suits seeking to block again the executive order. Yesterday, Judge Joseph Laplante of the US District of New Hampshire granted class-action status to any child who would potentially be denied citizenship under Trump's order. The judge ordered a preliminary halt to it as legal proceedings carry on. The judge delayed his ruling for seven days to permit the Trump administration to appeal. Cody Wofsy, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who argued the case, called the ruling a 'huge victory' that 'will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended.' Trump's executive order decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens—a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. His administration has argued that the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, addresses the rights of former slaves and not the children of undocumented migrants or temporary US visitors. The Supreme Court rejected such a narrow definition in a landmark 1898 case. The current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, avoided ruling last month on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order and only addressed the issue of nationwide injunctions. It nonetheless permitted the order to go ahead but delayed its ruling from taking effect until late July to allow for new court challenges. Several lower courts, in issuing their previous injunctions, had ruled that the executive order violated the Constitution. — AFP
