In Concord, New Hampshire, a federal judge is set to hear arguments regarding the certification of a class-action lawsuit that targets President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The case seeks to include every infant affected by the January executive order that denies citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The lawsuit was initiated on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents, and their infants, with representation from the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups. The plaintiffs aim to have their case certified as a class action and seek to block the enforcement of the executive order during ongoing legal proceedings. Their attorneys emphasize the urgency of obtaining an injunction as “tens of thousands” of babies and their families are at risk of suffering from the order's consequences within a short timeframe.
The controversy centers on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows the government to deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants, thereby challenging a long-standing interpretation of U.S. law concerning birthright citizenship.
Government lawyers argue that the previous interpretations of the citizenship clause have fostered a misleading incentive for illegal immigration, which they claim adversely affects national security, sovereignty, and economic stability. They assert that the Constitution does not include a provision that grants citizenship to children born to individuals who bypass federal immigration laws.
Legal disputes over the executive order have emerged in multiple states. Although several federal judges have issued injunctions preventing the order from being enacted, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed these injunctions in a ruling on June 27, allowing lower courts a 30-day window to act on the matter. Consequently, states like New Jersey and others involved in a Massachusetts federal case are pressing for clarification on whether their own nationwide injunction could still be applicable under the Supreme Court’s decision.
Washington state is experiencing similar legal maneuvers through the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with judges requesting parties to file briefs addressing the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The states involved are urging for the case to be sent back to the lower court for further deliberation.
In Maryland, a class-action lawsuit is also being organized by plaintiffs who seek to protect all individuals potentially impacted by the executive order, with a judge considering the request for a nationwide injunction from the nonprofit immigrant rights organization, CASA. Legal representatives from CASA are reassuring their members that immediate relocation is unnecessary and that multiple avenues for advocacy remain available to prevent the executive order from taking effect.
The New Hampshire plaintiffs include various individuals, among them a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is expecting her fourth child in October. She expressed her concern about her family's safety, fearing that her child may be targeted for immigration enforcement. Another plaintiff, a Brazilian man residing in Florida with his wife, who is in the process of applying for lawful permanent status, has also emphasized his child’s right to citizenship and a stable future in the United States.
The hearing scheduled for Thursday in New Hampshire is a crucial step for the plaintiffs, as legal battles against the executive order continue to unfold across the country.
