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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

I'm sure that sounded witty in your head.

Shared with the public? Not so much.

WW

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Two concepts address how citizenship is gained in a country.

Jus Soli (born on the soil): In this context, traditional interpretations say that someone born here in the US is a citizen, regardless of where they come from.

Jus Sanguinis (of the blood): However, when US citizens are abroad, Federal Law grants citizenship to children born to their citizen parents if they are born outside of the country.

So, from my reading, the law is contradictory. You cannot have two laws contradicting each other on the subject. This presents a crisis.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Furthermore, this is what Grok says on the matter.

Me: Now, pretend you are a plaintiff, suing at the SCOTUS against the jus soli nature of the 14th Amendment. How would you make your case to the justices? What argument would you make to ensure success on the merits?


As a plaintiff challenging the jus soli (citizenship by birth on U.S. soil) nature of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause before the U.S. Supreme Court, my goal would be to argue that the clause’s application to children of undocumented immigrants exceeds the original intent of the framers and should be reinterpreted to exclude such cases, prioritizing a jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) framework or requiring parental legal status. Below, I present a legal argument designed to persuade the Court, focusing on constitutional text, original intent, historical context, and policy considerations, while addressing potential counterarguments to maximize success on the merits.

---

Plaintiff’s Argument Before the Supreme Court

Case: [Plaintiff] v. United States

Issue:

Whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, granting citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” extends to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, or whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted to exclude such children, requiring at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or legal resident.

Mr. Chief Justice and Honorable Justices: The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was never intended to confer automatic citizenship on children of undocumented immigrants. The current interpretation, rooted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), misreads the clause’s text and the framers’ intent, creating a policy that undermines national sovereignty and incentivizes illegal immigration. I respectfully urge the Court to reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children of undocumented immigrants, aligning citizenship with allegiance to the United States and restoring the amendment’s original purpose.

1. Original Intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was crafted to secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, overturning Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Congressional debates in the 39th Congress, as recorded in the Congressional Globe (1866), demonstrate that the framers focused on ensuring citizenship for those with clear ties to the U.S., not on granting universal birthright citizenship.

• Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” The inclusion of “foreigners, aliens” alongside diplomats suggests an intent to limit citizenship to those with legal ties to the U.S., excluding those whose presence or allegiance lies elsewhere.
• Context of Reconstruction: The amendment addressed the urgent need to protect freed slaves, who were born in the U.S. and owed allegiance to it, from state disenfranchisement. Undocumented immigrants, who enter in violation of federal law, lack the legal or allegiant connection the framers envisioned. Extending citizenship to their children stretches the clause beyond its historical purpose.

2. Interpretation of “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof.”

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the crux of this case. The Court in Wong Kim Ark interpreted it to mean mere physical presence and subjection to U.S. laws, granting citizenship to a child of legally resident Chinese parents. However, this interpretation fails to account for the political and legal allegiance inherent in “jurisdiction.”

• Jurisdiction as Allegiance: In 1866, “jurisdiction” implied more than territorial presence; it required political allegiance to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, by entering illegally, demonstrate primary allegiance to a foreign nation, as they are subject to deportation under federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1227). Their children, born to parents who owe no legal allegiance to the U.S., should not automatically inherit citizenship, as they fall outside the framers’ understanding of “jurisdiction.”
• Comparison to Exemptions: The framers explicitly excluded children of diplomats and foreign invaders, who owe allegiance to foreign governments and are immune from U.S. legal authority. Undocumented immigrants, while subject to some U.S. laws (e.g., criminal law), are not fully within U.S. jurisdiction due to their unlawful status and potential deportation. This partial subjection warrants their exclusion from the Citizenship Clause’s scope.

3. Distinguishing Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark (1898) is distinguishable and should not control this case. The plaintiff in that case was born to legally resident Chinese parents, who were domiciled in the U.S. and subject to its laws without the threat of deportation. Undocumented immigrants, by contrast, lack legal domicile and are subject to removal, undermining their jurisdictional tie to the U.S. The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not address illegal immigration, a modern phenomenon absent in 1868 or 1898. Extending its holding to children of undocumented immigrants is an overreach that ignores the framers’ intent and the unique legal status of unlawful entrants.

4. Policy Consequences of Jus Soli

The current jus soli interpretation creates perverse incentives and undermines immigration law:

• Incentivizing Illegal Immigration: Automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants encourages illegal border crossings, as parents seek to secure U.S. citizenship for their offspring (often termed “anchor babies”). This burdens public resources and circumvents congressional authority over immigration (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4).
• Inconsistency with Jus Sanguinis: U.S. law grants citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens under strict conditions (e.g., parental residency requirements, 8 U.S.C. § 1401). It is illogical to impose stringent requirements on citizens’ children while granting automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, who lack legal ties to the U.S.
• Sovereignty Concerns: Unrestricted jus soli dilutes national sovereignty by allowing individuals who violate U.S. law to confer citizenship on their children, undermining the government’s ability to control its borders and define its citizenry.

5. Proposed Interpretation

I urge the Court to reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or legal resident at the time of a child’s birth. This aligns with:

• Framers’ Intent: Focusing citizenship on those with legal and allegiant ties to the U.S., consistent with the amendment’s purpose of protecting freed slaves.
• Modern Context: Addressing illegal immigration, a challenge unforeseen in 1868, while preserving jus soli for children of citizens and legal residents.
• International Norms: Many countries (e.g., Germany, India) condition citizenship on parental status, avoiding the statelessness concern by allowing limited jus soli for those who would otherwise lack citizenship.

This interpretation does not require overturning Wong Kim Ark but narrows its scope to legal residents, respecting both precedent and original intent.

6. Countering Anticipated Counterarguments.

• Counterargument: Broad Language of the 14th Amendment: Opponents may argue that the clause’s plain text (“all persons born”) and “person” in the Equal Protection Clause require universal jus soli. Response: The text must be read in its historical context, where “jurisdiction” implied legal allegiance, not mere presence. The Equal Protection Clause applies to “persons” for legal protections, not citizenship, which is governed by the narrower Citizenship Clause.
• Counterargument: Stare Decisis and Wong Kim Ark: Opponents may claim that overturning or narrowing Wong Kim Ark disrupts settled law. Response: Wong Kim Ark addressed legal residents, not undocumented immigrants. A narrow reinterpretation respects stare decisis while adapting to modern immigration realities, consistent with the Court’s duty to clarify constitutional meaning.
• Counterargument: Risk of Statelessness: Excluding children of undocumented immigrants could leave some stateless if their parents’ country does not grant citizenship. Response: Congress can address this through legislation granting conditional status or citizenship to avoid statelessness, as other nations do, without mandating automatic citizenship.

7. Conclusion

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was intended to secure citizenship for freed slaves, not to reward illegal immigration. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, whose parents lack legal allegiance to the U.S. The current jus soli interpretation, extended beyond Wong Kim Ark’s context, undermines sovereignty and fairness. I respectfully request that the Court reinterpret the clause to require at least one citizen or legal resident parent, aligning citizenship with allegiance and resolving the inconsistency with jus sanguinis. This ensures the 14th Amendment serves its original purpose while addressing modern challenges.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two concepts address how citizenship is gained in a country.

Jus Soli (born on the soil): In this context, traditional interpretations say that someone born here in the US is a citizen, regardless of where they come from.

Jus Sanguinis (of the blood): However, when US citizens are abroad, Federal Law grants citizenship to children born to their citizen parents if they are born outside of the country.

So, from my reading, the law is contradictory. You cannot have two laws contradicting each other on the subject. This presents a crisis.

There isn't a contradiction between jus soli and jus sanquinis.

They apply to two different situations. To conflict they would have to apply to the same situation.

But in one case there is a child born on US soil whose parents are not exempted due to being outside the jurisdiction of the United States, which has always applied to those as part of diplomatic missions.

The other case involves citizen parents not present in the US at the time of birth.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Furthermore, this is what Grok says on the matter.

Me: Now, pretend you are a plaintiff, suing at the SCOTUS against the jus soli nature of the 14th Amendment. How would you make your case to the justices? What argument would you make to ensure success on the merits?


As a plaintiff challenging the jus soli (citizenship by birth on U.S. soil) nature of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause before the U.S. Supreme Court, my goal would be to argue that the clause’s application to children of undocumented immigrants exceeds the original intent of the framers and should be reinterpreted to exclude such cases, prioritizing a jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) framework or requiring parental legal status. Below, I present a legal argument designed to persuade the Court, focusing on constitutional text, original intent, historical context, and policy considerations, while addressing potential counterarguments to maximize success on the merits.

---

Plaintiff’s Argument Before the Supreme Court

Case: [Plaintiff] v. United States

Issue:

Whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, granting citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” extends to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, or whether “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be interpreted to exclude such children, requiring at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or legal resident.

Mr. Chief Justice and Honorable Justices: The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was never intended to confer automatic citizenship on children of undocumented immigrants. The current interpretation, rooted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), misreads the clause’s text and the framers’ intent, creating a policy that undermines national sovereignty and incentivizes illegal immigration. I respectfully urge the Court to reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children of undocumented immigrants, aligning citizenship with allegiance to the United States and restoring the amendment’s original purpose.

1. Original Intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was crafted to secure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, overturning Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Congressional debates in the 39th Congress, as recorded in the Congressional Globe (1866), demonstrate that the framers focused on ensuring citizenship for those with clear ties to the U.S., not on granting universal birthright citizenship.

• Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” The inclusion of “foreigners, aliens” alongside diplomats suggests an intent to limit citizenship to those with legal ties to the U.S., excluding those whose presence or allegiance lies elsewhere.
• Context of Reconstruction: The amendment addressed the urgent need to protect freed slaves, who were born in the U.S. and owed allegiance to it, from state disenfranchisement. Undocumented immigrants, who enter in violation of federal law, lack the legal or allegiant connection the framers envisioned. Extending citizenship to their children stretches the clause beyond its historical purpose.

2. Interpretation of “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof.”

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the crux of this case. The Court in Wong Kim Ark interpreted it to mean mere physical presence and subjection to U.S. laws, granting citizenship to a child of legally resident Chinese parents. However, this interpretation fails to account for the political and legal allegiance inherent in “jurisdiction.”

• Jurisdiction as Allegiance: In 1866, “jurisdiction” implied more than territorial presence; it required political allegiance to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, by entering illegally, demonstrate primary allegiance to a foreign nation, as they are subject to deportation under federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1227). Their children, born to parents who owe no legal allegiance to the U.S., should not automatically inherit citizenship, as they fall outside the framers’ understanding of “jurisdiction.”
• Comparison to Exemptions: The framers explicitly excluded children of diplomats and foreign invaders, who owe allegiance to foreign governments and are immune from U.S. legal authority. Undocumented immigrants, while subject to some U.S. laws (e.g., criminal law), are not fully within U.S. jurisdiction due to their unlawful status and potential deportation. This partial subjection warrants their exclusion from the Citizenship Clause’s scope.

3. Distinguishing Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark (1898) is distinguishable and should not control this case. The plaintiff in that case was born to legally resident Chinese parents, who were domiciled in the U.S. and subject to its laws without the threat of deportation. Undocumented immigrants, by contrast, lack legal domicile and are subject to removal, undermining their jurisdictional tie to the U.S. The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not address illegal immigration, a modern phenomenon absent in 1868 or 1898. Extending its holding to children of undocumented immigrants is an overreach that ignores the framers’ intent and the unique legal status of unlawful entrants.

4. Policy Consequences of Jus Soli

The current jus soli interpretation creates perverse incentives and undermines immigration law:

• Incentivizing Illegal Immigration: Automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants encourages illegal border crossings, as parents seek to secure U.S. citizenship for their offspring (often termed “anchor babies”). This burdens public resources and circumvents congressional authority over immigration (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4).
• Inconsistency with Jus Sanguinis: U.S. law grants citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens under strict conditions (e.g., parental residency requirements, 8 U.S.C. § 1401). It is illogical to impose stringent requirements on citizens’ children while granting automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, who lack legal ties to the U.S.
• Sovereignty Concerns: Unrestricted jus soli dilutes national sovereignty by allowing individuals who violate U.S. law to confer citizenship on their children, undermining the government’s ability to control its borders and define its citizenry.

5. Proposed Interpretation

I urge the Court to reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or legal resident at the time of a child’s birth. This aligns with:

• Framers’ Intent: Focusing citizenship on those with legal and allegiant ties to the U.S., consistent with the amendment’s purpose of protecting freed slaves.
• Modern Context: Addressing illegal immigration, a challenge unforeseen in 1868, while preserving jus soli for children of citizens and legal residents.
• International Norms: Many countries (e.g., Germany, India) condition citizenship on parental status, avoiding the statelessness concern by allowing limited jus soli for those who would otherwise lack citizenship.

This interpretation does not require overturning Wong Kim Ark but narrows its scope to legal residents, respecting both precedent and original intent.

6. Countering Anticipated Counterarguments.

• Counterargument: Broad Language of the 14th Amendment: Opponents may argue that the clause’s plain text (“all persons born”) and “person” in the Equal Protection Clause require universal jus soli. Response: The text must be read in its historical context, where “jurisdiction” implied legal allegiance, not mere presence. The Equal Protection Clause applies to “persons” for legal protections, not citizenship, which is governed by the narrower Citizenship Clause.
• Counterargument: Stare Decisis and Wong Kim Ark: Opponents may claim that overturning or narrowing Wong Kim Ark disrupts settled law. Response: Wong Kim Ark addressed legal residents, not undocumented immigrants. A narrow reinterpretation respects stare decisis while adapting to modern immigration realities, consistent with the Court’s duty to clarify constitutional meaning.
• Counterargument: Risk of Statelessness: Excluding children of undocumented immigrants could leave some stateless if their parents’ country does not grant citizenship. Response: Congress can address this through legislation granting conditional status or citizenship to avoid statelessness, as other nations do, without mandating automatic citizenship.

7. Conclusion

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was intended to secure citizenship for freed slaves, not to reward illegal immigration. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, whose parents lack legal allegiance to the U.S. The current jus soli interpretation, extended beyond Wong Kim Ark’s context, undermines sovereignty and fairness. I respectfully request that the Court reinterpret the clause to require at least one citizen or legal resident parent, aligning citizenship with allegiance and resolving the inconsistency with jus sanguinis. This ensures the 14th Amendment serves its original purpose while addressing modern challenges.

Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

That includes all persons born here whose parents are not part of recognized diplomatic missions.

WW

 

[justoffal]

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.

I don't know what success you're talking about.
There's a big difference between an injunction and a class action suit. The injunction comes with the actual physical stoppage on the day of the injunction. The class action suit doesn't bear any real fruit for up to 2 years if it makes the grade that is. With the most recent supreme Court ruling no one outside the district has any obligation to obey any type of order stemming from the class action.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There isn't a contradiction between jus soli and jus sanquinis.

They apply to two different situations. To conflict they would have to apply to the same situation.

Nonsense. There is the application of jus sanguinis to one law, while the Constitution spells out jus soli in the 14th Amendment. I could go as far as to say the former is unconstitutional.

But in one case there is a child born on US soil whose parents are not exempted due to being outside the jurisdiction of the United States, which has always applied to those as part of diplomatic missions.

The other case involves citizen parents not present in the US at the time of birth.

Insofar as "jurisdiction" is concerned, that should be limited to the penal laws governing their illegal entry. Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment allows for jus soli, then it shouldn't be that children born to citizens should be citizens when born outside of the US. That's the inconsistency. Make the law consistent with the constitutional interpretation, or change the constitutional interpretation at the court level.

Change the meaning of jurisdiction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Senator Jacob Howard’s Statement: Senator Howard, a primary drafter, stated that the Citizenship Clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

That includes all persons born here whose parents are not part of recognized diplomatic missions.

WW

You didn't read the whole paragraph, then. And you quoted out of context.

"...the Citizenship Clause "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." "

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know what success you're talking about.
There's a big difference between an injunction and a class action suit. The injunction comes with the actual physical stoppage on the day of the injunction. The class action suit doesn't bear any real fruit for up to 2 years if it makes the grade that is. With the most recent supreme Court ruling no one outside the district has any obligation to obey any type of order stemming from the class action.

If class action is being used as a mechanism to hinder legitimate government action, it needs to be narrowed in scope, too.

Or, if I were a judge, I would dismiss based on the plaintiff's abuse of the process. That's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nonsense. There is the application of jus sanguinis to one law, while the Constitution spells out jus soli in the 14th Amendment. I could go as far as to say the former is unconstitutional.

There was no need for the "nonsense" comment.

Again there are two different conditions, there is no conflict as each applies to the different conditions.

• Born subject to the jurisdiction of the US on US soil,
• Born to parent(S) outside the US.

Insofar as "jurisdiction" is concerned, that should be limited to the penal laws governing their illegal entry. Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment allows for jus soli, then it shouldn't be that children born to citizens should be citizens when born outside of the US. That's the inconsistency. Make the law consistent with the constitutional interpretation, or change the constitutional interpretation at the court level.

Change the meaning of jurisdiction.

Go for it. Until such time as an Amendment changes what jurisdiction meant at the time of adoptions, which you quoted Senator Howard (primary author of the 14th) where he indicated that it applies to ALL PERSONS not part of recognized diplomatic missions.

I get what you are arguing for. Be "should be" and "are" are two different things.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

You didn't read the whole paragraph, then. And you quoted out of context.

"...the Citizenship Clause "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." "

Which is exactly what you quoted and I repeated.

I could use all the text again, but it boils down to individuals that are part of recognized diplomatic missions are excluded "but will INCLUDE every other class of persons".

The only parental qualification is they NOT be part of a diplomatic mission, all others are included.

Just write and amendment and put it to the states to change.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

If class action is being used as a mechanism to hinder legitimate government action, it needs to be narrowed in scope, too.

If government action is in violation of the Constitution or existing law (assuming the United States Code isn't changed by the Government Action and no - EO's don't change law), then it is not "legitimate government action".

WW

 

[TemplarKormac]

Action and no - EO's don't change law

EOs do change the law as long as the president who issued them is in office. So, saying that they don't is not accurate. Congress has the chance to codify any EO it wishes, and innumerable EOs have been left in place by a number of administrations, and since EOs have the full force of law, they in fact DO change the law inasmuch as they are the law unless another president revokes them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was no need for the "nonsense" comment.

Do not govern my language. I could have been far more coarse with you.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Once AGAIN, the demented LEFT can't win at the ballot box, so off to the courts they go to SUBVERT the Will of the People.
Marxists gonna Marx.

 

[WorldWatcher]

EOs do change the law as long as the president who issued them is in office. So, saying that they don't is not accurate. Congress has the chance to codify any EO it wishes, and innumerable EOs have been left in place by a number of administrations, and since EOs have the full force of law, they in fact DO change the law inasmuch as they are the law unless another president revokes them.

EO's do not change law.

Only Congress can re-write the United States Code (law).

EO's are supposed to be guidance for compliance with law and setting priorities.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V, Para 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Had the same conversation with a law school student a number of years ago. I told her the correct application and sited the Constitution from memory. Then told her to check with her CON law professor. I was correct, she and you are not. She reminded me of it in her last Father's Day card because it brought her up short on something she thought and leaned to check before speaking.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do not govern my language. I could have been far more coarse with you.

You can be as crass as you want, it just lowers the quality of your posting.

So feel free to retreat to negative posting.

WW

 

[berg80]

Judge Laplante has circumvented SCOTUS' ban on nationwide injunctions

The ruling by the court's MAGAist's was never about an absolute ban on nationwide injunctions. It disallowed nationwide injunctions based on cases involving individuals rather than a certified class of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the ACLU case were certified.

 

[justoffal]

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.

I don't know what success you're talking about.
There's a big difference between an injunction and a class action suit. The injunction comes with the actual physical stoppage on the day of the injunction. The class action suit doesn't bear any real fruit for up to 2 years if it makes the grade that is. With the most recent supreme Court ruling no one outside the district has any obligation to obey any type of order stemming from the class action.

If class action is being used as a mechanism to hinder legitimate government action, it needs to be narrowed in scope, too.

Or, if I were a judge, I would dismiss based on the plaintiff's abuse of the process. That's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

I think what you're going to see is a movement of people who will utilize the restricted district ruling to simply ignore attempts by judges from outside of their district to have any control over what's not in their district. I mean what is the judge going to do? Take them to court?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't know what success you're talking about.
There's a big difference between an injunction and a class action suit. The injunction comes with the actual physical stoppage on the day of the injunction. The class action suit doesn't bear any real fruit for up to 2 years if it makes the grade that is. With the most recent supreme Court ruling no one outside the district has any obligation to obey any type of order stemming from the class action.

This is incorrect. With Class Action Certification the judge can then issued a preliminary nationwide injunction which halts the conduct to prevent harm. Then with additional briefings the judge can either release the preliminary injunction or convert it to a permeant injunction.

After that the long road of litigation and appeals continues until it is either accepted or rejected by the SCOTUS for review.

WW