Under Stupid New SCOTUS Rule, Judge Blocks Trump's Stupid Birthright Citizenship Ban
A nice time for Rule of Law. For now.
In a case teed up by the Supreme Court just two weeks ago, a federal judge in New Hampshire yesterday certified a class-action lawsuit on behalf of babies who would be deprived of birthright citizenship by Donald Trump’s plainly unconstitutional first-day executive order that tried to change the Constitution, and issued a nationwide hold on the order while the case is being litigated.
US District Judge Joseph Laplante found that the nationwide injunction was necessary to protect all members of the class from being irreparably harmed, and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in court. That’s largely because the 14th Amendment is really clear about who is entitled to citizenship on the basis of birth:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
On top of that, presidents do not have the power to rewrite the Constitution with an executive order. If the framers had wanted that to be a possibility, they would have mentioned it somewhere.
In a monumentally stupid decision on the final day of its term, the Supreme Court threw out three lower-court rulings blocking the EO from going into effect. The Court made up a completely new restriction on lower federal courts, saying their rulings can only apply to the parties in any given lawsuit. But the Court also said that such nationwide injunctions might be allowed if plaintiffs went through the difficult process of bringing a class action lawsuit, which by definition applies to every person in a particular case, like “babies subject to having their citizenship denied because of their parents’ immigration status.”
The Supremes stayed their order from going into effect for 30 days, to allow states to get ready for the new heinous fuckery, but also to provide a window for new challenges on a class-action basis. So the plaintiffs in this case, represented by the ACLU and other civil rights groups, filed a new case just hours after the Court ruled, seeking class-action status to stop Trump from stripping children born in the US of citizenship.
The Associated Press reports that LaPlante, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush,
said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” said LaPlante. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
LaPlante did, however, restrict the class only to babies who would be subject to the EO, turning down the plaintiffs’ request to include parents as well. The plaintiffs’ attorneys said that was fine by them, since that wouldn’t make any real difference.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs Cody Wofsy, of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, hailed the ruling, since that’s the verb you use in a situation like this.
“We've gotten an outpouring of concern and confusion and fear from people who are going to be subjected to this order around the country, people telling us that they're considering changing where they're going to deliver their babies, moving away from their doctors, their communities worrying about their families being torn apart. […]
“Today, this court slammed that door shut and made clear this cannot be applied to anyone, anywhere in the country."
LaPlante stayed his order for seven days, to give the Trump administration time to file a stupid goddamn appeal to the stupid goddamn Supreme Court, so now we’ll see if it was serious about its happy talk about how class actions would be a fine substitute for nationwide injunctions in regular lawsuits. Justice Kegstand wrote an entire concurring opinion (page 42 at the linked PDF) saying that class actions are definitely the way to go.
Even so, the Trump administration reacted as if the Supremes hadn’t included that handy nudge to lower courts at all, because that’s Trump’s entire game. White House spokesjerk Harrison Fields accused LaPlante of “abusing class action procedures” and vowed that the administration would continue “fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
Never mind that LaPlante was following the course recommended by the Court. MAGA supporters don’t care too much about the details anyway, because the Constitution is mostly useful for giving them the phrase “We The People” and also for guns. The rest, they’ll leave to Trump.
Trump will now undoubtedly appeal LaPlante’s ruling back up to an appeals court and eventually to the Supreme Court, which we assume will once more rule only on whether the injunction holds, while leaving aside the merits of Trump’s executive order, which is plainly unconstitutional. The longer the Court can avoid telling the Mad King that, the happier they’ll all be.
[AP / NBC News / Hew Hampshire Public Radio]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please become a paid subscriber, or if you’d prefer to make a one-time donation using this button, we won’t even demand to see your papers. Just your plastic.
𝟭𝟰𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘑𝘶𝘯𝘦 13, 1866, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘑𝘶𝘭𝘺 9, 1868
Section 1.
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. 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.
I don't think the framers of the Constitution had the original intent of making it easier to take unconstitutional action than it would be for citizens to defend their Constitutional rights. They don't explicitly say that, of course, but it should be intrinsic to any foundational document. Like if I'm in a court, and I ask "Hey judge, can they do this?" The answer should be "No," and that's the fucking end of it. No fucking country can be said to be functional if every fucking citizen has to individually litigate for every single established right. What fucking sense does that make?