In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, a New Hampshire judge has temporarily blocked the implementation of his executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals born in the United States. The ruling came in response to a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents a group of immigrant parents and their newborns challenging the constitutionality of Trump's directive.
This legal decision follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that placed restrictions on when federal courts can issue universal injunctions. Notably, while the Supreme Court limited these injunctions, it did not eliminate them entirely, allowing for certain cases to surmount procedural barriers. The ACLU's lawsuit fits within these parameters, arguing that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
Responding to the judge's ruling, a spokesperson for the Trump administration criticized the decision as "unlawful" and an attempt to bypass both the Supreme Court's ruling and established legal practices. The administration expressed determination to fight against what they called "rogue district court judges."
Trump's efforts to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors were among his administration's central immigration policies. The ACLU's lawsuit aims to underscore the harmful impact this order would have on vulnerable populations and asserts its unconstitutionality.
This recent judicial ruling pauses what has long been a priority for Trump, requiring the government seven days to lodge an appeal. Restricting birthright citizenship was prominently featured in Trump’s early actions as president and has faced continuous legal challenges, resulting in previous nationwide injunctions against the enforcement of his order.
As legal battles continue, this ruling reflects the ongoing contention surrounding immigration policy and its implications for American law and societal values.
This legal decision follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that placed restrictions on when federal courts can issue universal injunctions. Notably, while the Supreme Court limited these injunctions, it did not eliminate them entirely, allowing for certain cases to surmount procedural barriers. The ACLU's lawsuit fits within these parameters, arguing that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
Responding to the judge's ruling, a spokesperson for the Trump administration criticized the decision as "unlawful" and an attempt to bypass both the Supreme Court's ruling and established legal practices. The administration expressed determination to fight against what they called "rogue district court judges."
Trump's efforts to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors were among his administration's central immigration policies. The ACLU's lawsuit aims to underscore the harmful impact this order would have on vulnerable populations and asserts its unconstitutionality.
This recent judicial ruling pauses what has long been a priority for Trump, requiring the government seven days to lodge an appeal. Restricting birthright citizenship was prominently featured in Trump’s early actions as president and has faced continuous legal challenges, resulting in previous nationwide injunctions against the enforcement of his order.
As legal battles continue, this ruling reflects the ongoing contention surrounding immigration policy and its implications for American law and societal values.
