Posted on 07/10/2025 8:17:31 AM PDT by DFG
A federal judge in New Hampshire granted class-action status to a lawsuit seeking to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship by the Trump administration and granted a temporary block of the order restricting birthright citizenship from going into effect throughout the country.
The suit was brought on behalf of a pregnant immigrant, immigrant parents and their infants and had sought class action status for all babies around the country who would be affected by Trump’s executive order and their parents.
Cody Wofsy, the lead attorney on the case with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued for class-action status in front of U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante Thursday morning, stating that their clients would suffer irreparable harm by being denied birthright citizenship, a claim with which the judge found credible.
Laplante ordered during the hearing that class-action status be certified in the case but only for the babies who would be impacted by the restrictions, not for the parents.
He also ordered a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking Trump’s order from going into effect, but stayed his order for seven days, allowing the government time to appeal.
"Today, the court certified a class nationwide of children who are impacted by the President's executive order and enjoined it from going into effect on July 27 this is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order," Wofsy said at a news conference after the hearing. "This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
“clients would suffer irreparable harm by being denied birthright citizenship”
https://www.lerctr.org/~transit/healy/bull.wav
Didn’t SCOTUS rule in his favor?
I thought this is on SCOTUS docket
They did, regarding the applicable of nationawide injunctions... and on the surface, this would appear to be in conflict with that ruling.
SCOTUS did not rule on the core part: the birthright citizenship issue. But their ruling did have the effect of allowing the EO to proceed, pending this kind of inevitable new litigation.
The last paragraph in the excerpt clearly shows that the so-called judge is not ruling according to law, he’s ruling in accordance with his own misguided leftist beliefs and feeeeeeelings. He actually editorializes in a non-legal manner in the ruling. He is nothing but a leftist moron. Where’s the bond requirement addressed? Nowhere. That makes the granting of the preliminary injunction illegal.
3 adjectives... none of them accurate.
I didn’t think the SC stopped nationwide injunctions in cases of class actions. That was one of the criticisms of their ruling.
Kick N.H. out of the Union.
No.
Correct. You could drive a truck through it. Alito warned about this.
It was a Federal court.
But, but, butt...
Judge LapLante...
What does this mean for children born in Tibet that \identify\ as being born in the US.
Shirley, they must be citizens!
the “Dipstick judge” is out of his lane. He doesn’t have the authority. The boy needs to go shave his armpits.
Deport the mothers while this legal process continues. If the babies will be affected by the Executive Order that is an admission that the mothers are here illegally. Deport them all and they can leave the babies pending court decisions.
"Judge blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship"
The simplest argument (imo) against the politically correct argument that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) established birthright citizenship is the following.
Noting that there are some twists and turns in the history of the law below, it is the original birthright-related citizenship law of the land associated with Section 1, the law effectively prohibiting birthright citizenship imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born [all emphases added] 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"CRA1866 [, Sec. 1:] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding." --From Civil Rights Act of 1866." —THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sass. I. CH. 31. 1866. 27 CHAP. X (CRA1866)
If 14A drafters had intended to establish birthright citizenship (they didn't imo) then CRA1866 above is an unconstitutional law imo.
Note that international law at the time of the drafting of 14A indicated that the newborn inherits the citizenship of the father no matter where the newborn is born.
The bottom line is that if it weren't for the misguided (imo) Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, this birthright controversy concerning undocumented Democrats probably would have never have made it to the Supreme Court imo.
It would apply to the “plaintiffs” in this case only... without a national injunction... My guess is they are trying to do some class action lawsuit to make the plaintiffs everyone to get around the national injunction ban.
This was going to the supreme court either way. So sit back and relax...
Exactly. Justice Samuel Alito warned about judges certifying a class in order to impose a nation wide injunction.
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.