Posted on 07/10/2025 8:31:47 AM PDT by Signalman
Despite a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that restricts the ability of lower court judges to block President Donald Trump’s policies using nationwide injunctions, a federal judge ruled on Thursday to bar the administration from enforcing an executive order placing limits on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante from Concord, New Hampshire, reached his decision after advocates for immigrant rights asked him for class action status in a lawsuit they filed to represent any babies who would have their citizenship status jeopardized by the president’s order.
He ruled the plaintiffs could move forward as a class, which allowed him to slap a new judicial order on the implementation of the president’s order, blocking it nationally. Laplante said the choice to issue the injunction was “not a close call,” pointing out that if Trump’s order were allowed to take effect, it would potentially deprive children of their U.S. citizenship.
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he explained, according to Reuters. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
Judge Laplante said he would put a stay on the ruling for a few days to allow the administration to file an appeal. He said he would issue a written decision by the end of the day.
The ACLU, partnered with a number of other individuals and groups, filed the lawsuit mere hours after SCOTUS ruled 6-3 on June 27 to limit nationwide injunctions.
With that decision, the policy would go into full effect on July 27.
“Looking to seize upon an exception in the Supreme Court’s ruling, the lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the decision allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits,” the report said. “The three judges who issued nationwide injunctions found that Trump’s directive likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The amendment states that 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.'”
The DOJ has made the case that President Trump’s order is in full compliance with the Constitution and has asked the judge to determine that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a whole class.
The ruling from SCOTUS did not engage with the legal merits of the order issued by the administration. The order gives directions for federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies who do not have at least one parent who is an actual American citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
The USSC has made their decision. If it’s not the “law of the land” and a lower court can ignore its ruling, what’s the point of having a USSC?
Did I miss something stated in the Constitution?
Yeah, they’ll have to decide whether to take their US-citizen newborn with them when they’re deported, or just leave them here to be adopted by somebody else.
Crockette leads all the RAT “man buns” in the latest poll for the Texas Senate seat. Everybody knows Paxton has that seat in the bag so the RATS are going with a bag full of female sexual organs as their big winner.
So now the judges are admitting that fetuses have legal rights? Or is the case unripe, because there is only “damage” done after the child is born and citizenship is not recognized?
Seems to me that for this to be a class-action suit you’d have to have a bunch of plaintiffs whose citizenship was not recognized. Otherwise it would not be ripe.
Am I misunderstanding the case?
I have family in NH and was just recently visiting.
NH is about as far as you can go from being touched by illegals.
I was there for a week and saw nothing but good Americans who’s families have clearly been here for a very long time.
Send him to TX or AZ for a week on a paid vacation and he might change is tune.
Has ANYONE read the Judge’s Order?
I thought so.
“Just ignore them, what can this or any Judge do?”
That is the Andrew Jackson approach: They have their ruling. Now let’s see them enforce it.
That ship sailed a long time ago. The only recourse in the Constitution is (1) for Congress to enact law that restricts or eliminates federal judges (save SCOTUS) (2) Impeach and remove tyrant judges. (3) SCOTUS to clarify/interpret/define the federal judiciary role to clearly and unequivocally end their obstruction of Article II powers.
Unfortunately, we should not expect a TDS, RINO, Congress and SCOTUS to do what's required.
It’s the class action status that allowed him to circumvent the SCOTUS decision. I don’t think his accepting that status will hold up on appeal.
It is not as simple as saying “I agree these people are a class entitled to such status.” That has to be proven and the proofs are spelled out in Federal law.
Only face-saving reply from Bondi- “Go F@#$ yourself”.
Precisely right. The previous legal jihad strategy failed at the local level so the Left took the next step up. So far its working for them as the USSC has utterly failed (refused) to deal with it. And so the result is widespread legal dysfunction.
Yes he does. The class action status probably will not hold up but granting it does mean a nationwide injunction can be issued. That is not new and SCOTUS did not change that in its ruling.
No, it is the many posters here who can not read or understand SCOTUS’ decision.
The granting of a class action status has always allowed a judge to issue a nationwide injunction. SCOTUS was clear judges could not issue nationwide injunctions in exception to that procedure. A judge in Houston could not issue a nationwide injunction when a individual’s claim was before him. Nor could a judge in Boston issue such for a defendant in Houston.
The class action claim will likely does not meet the required criteria but that will be decided when the case actually gets to court or when Trump appeals the decision.
It’s not a back door. Nationwide injunctions for class action lawsuits are nothing new.
Why would they bother?
Isn’t a weaponized judiciary wonderful. Americans are .......
The 14th Amendment says “all persons”. The originalist reading means ALL Persons. All of a sudden FR is cuckoo for dynamic construction of the Constitution?
The remedy is a constitutional amendment redefining the construction of 14A. I have no objection to that.
I would hope then that the class action expedites the case. I expect, of course, that the lower courts will rule against the administration. SCOTUS will then have to decide if the clause “under the jurisdiction thereof” includes the children of illegals and temporary visitors.
Well, to be informed?
It beats going off half-cocked and ignorantly posting.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.