Trump's birthright citizenship efforts blocked by judge despite Supreme Court ruling
U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante said his decision was "not a close call."
A federal judge again barred President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship nationwide after the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling July 10 after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump's directive.
Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally.
The question of whether to issue an injunction was "not a close call," he said, noting children could be deprived of U.S. citizenship if Trump's order took effect.
"That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone," he said. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
The judge issued a written decision later in the day that paused his injunction for seven days to allow for an appeal before it goes into effect. He said he had "no difficulty" determining an injunction was appropriate for what he described as an executive order of "highly questionable constitutionality that would deny citizenship to many thousands of individuals."
In response, the White House vowed to fight what it said are attempts by "rogue" judges to block the president's policies.
“Today’s decision is an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief," said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement. "This judge’s decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures."
The American Civil Liberties Union and others filed the suit just hours after the Supreme Court on June 27 issued a 6-3 ruling, powered by its conservative majority, that narrowed three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in separate challenges to Trump's directive.
The suit was filed on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected.
Under the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's executive order would take 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 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 Justice Department has argued that Trump's order conforms with the Constitution and has asked Laplante to find that the plaintiffs cannot sue as a class.
The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legal merits of Trump's order, which the Republican president issued as part of his hardline immigration agenda on his first day back in office in January.
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.
Laplante, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, ruled Trump's order contradicted the 14th Amendment and a 1898 Supreme Court ruling interpreting it.
In that case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted that amendment as recognizing the right to birthright citizenship regardless of the immigration status of a baby's parents.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if it takes effect nationally, according to Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who have challenged it.
Reuters contributed.
This story was updated with additional information.