NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
If I get a chance to access the complaint on Pacer I'll post it here unless someone else has access to a free version of the pleading.
Since the plaintiffs name Trump specifically, does this mean, according to that now infamous SCOTUS ruling that naming him in any legal proceeding is pointless? And I was taught that before you can sue the government you have to get their permission due to Rex non potest peccare ("the King can do no wrong") - sovereign immunity:
Since the plaintiffs name Trump specifically, does this mean, according to that now infamous SCOTUS ruling that naming him in any legal proceeding is pointless? And I was taught that before you can sue the government you have to get their permission due to Rex non potest peccare ("the King can do no wrong") - sovereign immunity:
Three local pregnant women sue Trump administration over birthright citizenship order
A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), a Seattle-based non-profit organization, filed the suit on behalf of three pregnant non-citizen women and a proposed class of others similarly situated, arguing the order violates the U.S. Constitution.
The suit names President Trump and several federal officials and agencies as defendants, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the Department of State; Acting Attorney General James McHenry; the Department of Justice; Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman; the Department of Homeland Security; Acting Commissioner for Social Security Michelle King; the Social Security Administration; Acting Secretary of Agriculture Gary Washington; the Department of Agriculture; and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Jeff Wu.
According to court documents, the Executive Order, signed on January 20, seeks to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The order directs federal agencies, starting 30 days after signing, to deny documentation of U.S. citizenship to newborns whose mothers were “unlawfully present” in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or to newborns whose mothers were in the U.S. with “temporary” status and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth.
The lawsuit argues the executive order seeks to end jus soli, the legal principle of birthright citizenship based on being born on U.S. soil, and that it contradicts the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The suit highlights that this order would establish a prospective-only rule, resulting in disparate treatment based on birth date and parental status.
It states that it would lead to a situation where children born within days of each other could have drastically different citizenship statuses depending solely on the circumstances of their parents, creating a discriminatory effect.
The order also fails to define key terms, like “unlawfully present” and “temporary status,” adding to the order’s vagueness.
The suit further argues the executive order would deny children born to non-citizens the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, such as the ability to travel with a U.S. passport, the right to re-enter the country, access to higher education, the ability to seek employment, and access to crucial safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The lawsuit notes that the order could result in statelessness for children who are not recognized as citizens by the laws of their parents’ countries.
It also asserts that the order would strip away rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that “put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy.”
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs, all represented by NWIRP, include three pregnant women: Delmy Franco Aleman of Lynnwood, a non-citizen from El Salvador who is due on March 26, 2025; Cherly Norales Castillo of Seattle, a non-citizen from Honduras who is in removal proceedings and due on March 19, 2025; and Alicia Chavarria Lopez of Bothell, a non-citizen from El Salvador who has applied for asylum and is due on July 21, 2025.
All three women have lived in the U.S. for several years, with the longest, Ms. Lopez, having lived in the U.S. since 2016. Ms. Aleman has lived in the U.S. since 2015. Ms. Castillo has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Each said fears of family separation because of the executive order, as well as concerns that their children will be denied their rights and will be at risk of removal from the U.S.
The suit seeks to represent a class of all pregnant people living in Washington State who will give birth in the U.S. on or after February 19, 2025, and whose children would be affected by the Executive Order, where neither parent of the expected child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth, and all children born under those same conditions.
The lawsuit requests a preliminary and permanent injunction to halt enforcement of the Executive Order; a declaration that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status; a declaration that the Executive Order violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law; and that the court set aside any agency action implementing the Executive Order.
©2025 Cox Media Group
