ACLU Files Class Action To Bypass Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship

Exploiting a possible loophole in a Supreme Court decision that limits sweeping universal injunctions against President Trump’s executive orders, the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrants rights’ advocates are now filing a class action against the president’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship.The lawsuit charges that the Trump administration is flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent and requests an emergency restraining order preventing the executive order from being enforced.The case is filed in the United States District Court in New Hampshire on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order, and their parents.“Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,” the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, Cody Wofsy, says in a press release. “The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”The same organizations filed a similar suit in January — in the same court — on behalf of a group of babies born on American soil who will be denied citizenship under the order. The court issued a ruling protecting them and that case is pending at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments set for August 1. The new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation.In a split decision on Friday, the Supreme Court handed Mr. Trump a win by putting limits on lower court judges issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions against his executive orders.In a six-three ruling, the justices say lower courts can be blocked from issuing injunctions that are broader than necessary. The court’s three liberals dissented.Several federal district court judges placed a nationwide stay on Mr. Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court said the lower courts had overstepped their authority without deciding on the constitutionality of the actual order.The ACLU’s suit attempts to circumvent the issue the Supreme Court decided. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor left the door open for class actions as an “important tool to provide broad relief to lawless Government conduct.” But she noted that these are not perfect substitutes for universal injunctions due to the suits involving high costs and the hurdle of class certification.But Justice Samuel Alito warned about that avenue in a concurring opinion on Monday: “District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes.”Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s own concurring opinion also said Friday’s decision will require district courts to follow proper legal procedures when awarding relief under class actions. “Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized,” Justice Kavanaugh warned.

ACLU Files Class Action To Bypass Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

Trump Threatens to Revive Anti-Weaponization Fund as Blanche Nomination Stalls

Spain Claims Ceuta Crisis Easing, With Most Migrants Already Returned to Morocco

George Santos Agrees to $35,000 To Settle Federal Probe Over Kalshi Trades

Infantino Abandons Kushner Deal But Fails To Halt Global FIFA Uprising

Trump Lashes Out at Pirro Over Dropped Reflecting Pool Case: ‘I Disagree 100%’