A successful shift in legal tactics to class action suits has the desired result.

[berg80]

A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship after certifying a lawsuit as a class action, effectively the only way he could impose such a far-reaching limit after a Supreme Court ruling last month.

Ruling from the bench, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire said his decision applied nationwide to babies who would have been subject to the executive order, which included the children of undocumented parents and those born to academics in the United States on student visas, on or after Feb. 20.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/10/us/trump-news

How great would it be for the country if we can get a ruling on the EO's constitutionality? I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

That's because there aren't any.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship after certifying a lawsuit as a class action, effectively the only way he could impose such a far-reaching limit after a Supreme Court ruling last month.

Ruling from the bench, Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire said his decision applied nationwide to babies who would have been subject to the executive order, which included the children of undocumented parents and those born to academics in the United States on student visas, on or after Feb. 20.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/10/us/trump-news

How great would it be for the country if we can get a ruling on the EO's constitutionality? I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

So the EO backfired?

 

[berg80]

So the EO backfired?

It's legality is to be determined.

 

[popscottpopscott]

Judge Laplante has circumvented SCOTUS' ban on nationwide injunctions by declaring anyone on earth 'deprived' of US citizenship is part of a class in order to reinstate his nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO. It effectively includes every person on earth who is not a US citizen.

 

[BackAgain]

I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

He isn’t. You persist in missing the point.

As usual, you claim that the 14th Amendment says anything at all about the alleged birthright citizenship of children born here of illegal alien(s) parents. It doesn’t.

And as always, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Also, you lack any hint of recognizing a cogent argument.

 

[popscottpopscott]

LaPlante...He’s the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s order barring asylum applications outside official ports of entry. He’s also the judge who attempted to block Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Haitians.
These coordinated attempts by rogue unelected judges needs to be looked into.

 

[scruffy]

It's legality is to be determined.

In other words leftards are learning what they can get away with.

Leftard lawfare at its most insidious.

 

[BackAgain]

It doesn’t matter to a biased dimwit like bug.80 that in order to conclude that there is a “class” of people similarly affected by an executive action or a Congressionally passed law, there have to be conditions met.

• Standing to sue is a big one.
• Proper demonstration of jurisdiction is another.

As to standing:

The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that the extent of due process for aliens present in the United States may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/#ALDF_00028418">4</a> For instance, at times the Court has indicated that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/#ALDF_00028419">5</a> Thus, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which due process considerations constrain Congress’s exercise of its immigration power with respect to aliens within the United States.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/

(With my apologies for the formatting.)

It may be argued that if an illegal alien wishes to be heard — in an American Court of Law — in a complaint about any Congressionally passed Acts or about a Presidential Executive Order implementing that and other laws, then maybe the judicial response ought to be:

What right do you — as an illegal alien in our land — have to have your complaint even heard? The Constitution states what authority the Courts have.

See: Article III, Section 2, Clause 1

Standing Requirement: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

Now point to the sentence or provision that allows any one not a “Citizen” to use our courts.

 

[elektra]

How great would it be for the country if we can get a ruling on the EO's constitutionality? I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

When a political party violates the constitution and our laws, the amendment of the constitution no longer applies.

40,000,000 illegal aliens. 40,000,000 crimes committed by Washington DC, the swamp the elite

Sorry, but the constitution does not apply to those who break the constitution.

 

[elektra]

How great would it be for the country if we can get a ruling on the EO's constitutionality? I haven't seen any cogent arguments made to suggest a prez can alter the Constitution by executive fiat.

When a political party violates the constitution and our laws, the amendment of the constitution no longer applies.

40,000,000 illegal aliens. 40,000,000 crimes committed by Washington DC, the swamp the elite

Sorry, but the constitution does not apply to those who break the constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

FYI:

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.

 

[Kondor3]

FYI:

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.

Ahhhhh... and there's the rub...

 

[Mac1958]

Ahhhhh... and there's the rub...

What does that phrase mean to you? At first blush, it just looks like the person is subject to the laws of the country.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It doesn’t matter to a biased dimwit like bug.80 that in order to conclude that there is a “class” of people similarly affected by an executive action or a Congressionally passed law, there have to be conditions met.

• Standing to sue is a big one.
• Proper demonstration of jurisdiction is another.

As to standing:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/

(With my apologies for the formatting.)

It may be argued that if an illegal alien wishes to be heard — in an American Court of Law — in a complaint about any Congressionally passed Acts or about a Presidential Executive Order implementing that and other laws, then maybe the judicial response ought to be:

What right do you — as an illegal alien in our land — have to have your complaint even heard? The Constitution states what authority the Courts have.

See: Article III, Section 2, Clause 1

Standing Requirement: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

Now point to the sentence or provision that allows any one not a “Citizen” to use our courts.

Illegal aliens should not qualify as a "class" under American law. They don't have the proper standing to sue as a class. The provisions under Federal Civil Procedure should not apply to people here illegally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does that phrase mean to you? At first blush, it just looks like the person is subject to the laws of the country.

Nuance Mac, which our judiciary, and you don't seem to grasp. People who enter here illegally should only be subject to the penal laws and the constitutional rights therein regarding their due process. Nothing else. This idea that all of our other laws somehow govern them as they do citizens is garbage.

 

[JGalt]

How pathetic the left has become. They've been reduced to the level of resorting tojailhouse legal practitioners and lawfare in a futile effort to try to get revenge against President Trump.

 

[Care4all]

Nuance Mac, which our judiciary, and you don't seem to grasp. People who enter here illegally should only be subject to the penal laws and the constitutional rights therein regarding their due process. Nothing else. This idea that all of our other laws somehow govern them as they do citizens is garbage.

Then why oh why, isn't that mentioned in the constitution?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then why oh why, isn't that mentioned in the constitution?

Address me with respect, or don't address me at all. Your tone is atrocious.

 

[Mac1958]

Then why oh why, isn't that mentioned in the constitution?

In their universe, MAGA is allowed to add new interpretations and stipulations as needed.