Washington State: Three local pregnant women sue Trump administration over birthright citizenship order

[Kondor3]

Lets hope so. Decent folk should cooperate against evil.

Indeed. Which is why America voted-in an Administration that will stop the Evil of the Illegal Alien invasion of America.

 

[WEATHER53]

How would criminal non citizens be allowed to sue POTUS?
What’s the point in having A POTUS if any piss ant judge anywhere or non citizens can thwart him??

 

[Zincwarrior]

A prime example of why these vermin need to be expelled from our lands. Jist here for the hand outs, and cash grabs. Fuck em. I hope they die during child birth.

You are a sick individual. But we knew that.

 

[Edgetho]

Washington State: Three local pregnant women sue Trump administration over birthright citizenship order​

Should read: "The American Communist Lawyers Union finds three Useful Idiots to use as props in a phony lawsuit against the goobermint"

There is a law that provides that the government shall pay all fees and expenses of winning lawyers in a Civil Rights case. So bullshit lawyers (is there any other kind?) are free to file bullshit lawsuits against the goobermint without any fear of loss whatsoever.

That law needs to be repealed as of about fifty years ago. But now would be okay too.

Lawyers are 90% dimocrap scum and do more harm to this Country than every other disgusting guild in the Country. Combined. Most civilized Countries limit the number of lawyers allowed to operate within their borders because they do much more harm than good. Parasites, pimples on the ass of society. A disease

Not sure if it was dismissed or not. Lawyers work behind the scenes in darkness. But it is despicable.

Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees in Peril at the Supreme Court​

For civil rights lawyers, attorneys' fees paid by the government play a critical role in funding work on behalf of indigent clients and in deterring unlawful conduct by government actors. In April, however, the Supreme Court accepted for review a case that threatens to upend settled law across the federal circuits.

 

[scruffy]

Brother, Washington State is more messed up than California by whacko liberals. The worst of California invaded Washington and took over. They are textbook looney tunes.

Portland is also a mess, once beautiful downtown Portland is now full of junkies and homeless beggars.

 

[Rogue AI]

The due dates are in March and July? Plenty of time to deport them to where they belong. Kind of stupid to go public knowing deportations are ramping up.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How would criminal non citizens be allowed to sue POTUS?
What’s the point in having A POTUS if any piss ant judge anywhere or non citizens can thwart him??

This may have excaped you but you also have a constiturion.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This may have excaped you but you also have a constiturion.

LoL, excaped and consiturion?

LMAO

 

[WEATHER53]

This may have excaped you but you also have a constiturion.

So now answer the question

 

[tahuyaman]

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:

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.​

​

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​

If these women are in the country illegally, deport them.

 

[Edgetho]

So when you pick a fight with someone you're surprised when they swing back?

There's a difference between legitimate lawsuits that ask the Courts to define the fine print in Laws and EO's and the scumbag lawfare the scumbag Left wages at every fucking opportunity.

dimocraps are scum. They have forever branded themselves as the scum of the Earth. Everything they do from now unto eternity will be viewed with a jaundiced eye because of it.

If the Country wants a Left-Leaning Party, which is not a terrible thing to have, it needs to send the dimocrap FILTH party to the scrap heap and start over. dimocrap scum will never be forgiven for the shit they did these last several years. Never. But, how would somebody that was part of it know any better? They wouldn't. Just like.... Whatever. None of it would make any sense to you anyway

At least Fascists had some (not very many) good points, dimocrap scum have none. They can't do anything but lie, cheat and steal. At least the Fascists could "Make the trains run on time".

Over your head, I know. dimocrap scum would fuck up a one-car-funeral

 

[Edgetho]

How would criminal non citizens be allowed to sue POTUS?
What’s the point in having A POTUS if any piss ant judge anywhere or non citizens can thwart him??

People on American Soil have rights. Regardless of their Citizenship.

That might need to be looked at, as well

 

[Edgetho]

If these women are in the country illegally, deport them.

It will likely be a "Jane Doe I, II, and III"

Lawyers are despicable scum. And don't forget....... Every single Judge is a lawyer FIRST. Virtually every dimocrap scum politician is a lawyer.

We may win, we may lose but at least Trump has the balls to fight them.

dimocrap scum are accustomed to rolling over all of us. They're in for a surprise.

 

[WEATHER53]

People on American Soil have rights. Regardless of their Citizenship.

That might need to be looked at, as well

They have legal rights but not constitutional rights

 

[Edgetho]

They have legal rights but not constitutional rights

Well, yeah they do.

The Constitution doesn't really address the citizenship of those it covers. Just, "We The People". I don't think it says much about, "We The Citizens".

Just like apportionment. The Census counts everybody. And Congresscritters are appointed based on the Census.

Of course, times have changed in the last 250 years, which is why we need a SCOTUS with some balls to address those changes.

I am not going to hold my breath

 

[Thinker101]

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:

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.​

​

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​

Pretty safe to say the parents are illegal and need to be deported. If you want to claim the child is a citizen, the child can stay. They get a choice.

 

[WEATHER53]

Well, yeah they do.

The Constitution doesn't really address the citizenship of those it covers. Just, "We The People". I don't think it says much about, "We The Citizens".

Just like apportionment. The Census counts everybody. And Congresscritters are appointed based on the Census.

Of course, times have changed in the last 250 years, which is why we need a SCOTUS with some balls to address those changes.

I am not going to hold my breath

Illegals are not We the People. They have lawful rights but not citizen constitutional ones .

 

[Edgetho]

Illegals are not We the People. They have lawful rights but not citizen constitutional ones .

Sorry, but -- Yes, they are and yes, they do.

Yes, the United States Constitution applies to everyone in the United States, including non-citizens. This includes undocumented immigrants.

Explanation

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's protections apply to all aliens in the United States.
  
  
• The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause apply to all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status.
  
  
• The Fourteenth Amendment states that people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
  

Some protections that apply to most visitors to the United States include: protection from abuse and domestic violence, the right to a fair wage, protection from sex trafficking, and protection from discrimination
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Constitution was written long before we even knew what constituted a Citizen.
I'm on your side but we have to be clear about certain things. Illegals have rights.

How much and how many is what we need SCOTUS to clarify.

Saboteurs, invaders and unlawful combatants do not have rights. But everybody else on US Soil has the same rights unless the Law specifically excludes them. Like Voting. Illegals can't vote and that is spelled out. But not in the Constitution, in State Law.

Right #1 -- You enter the US illegally, you have the right to be deported.

 

[Kondor3]

Sorry, but -- Yes, they are and yes, they do.

Yes, the United States Constitution applies to everyone in the United States, including non-citizens. This includes undocumented immigrants.

Explanation

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's protections apply to all aliens in the United States.
  
  
• The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause apply to all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status.
  
  
• The Fourteenth Amendment states that people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.

Some protections that apply to most visitors to the United States include: protection from abuse and domestic violence, the right to a fair wage, protection from sex trafficking, and protection from discrimination
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Constitution was written long before we even knew what constituted a Citizen.
I'm on your side but we have to be clear about certain things. Illegals have rights.

How much and how many is what we need SCOTUS to clarify.

Saboteurs, invaders and unlawful combatants do not have rights. But everybody else on US Soil has the same rights unless the Law specifically excludes them. Like Voting. Illegals can't vote and that is spelled out. But not in the Constitution, in State Law.

Right #1 -- You enter the US illegally, you have the right to be deported.

Yes... classifying Illegal Aliens as Invaders DOES seem to change the Legal Framework for these uninvited pests, doesn't it?

 

[Edgetho]

Yes... classifying Illegal Aliens as Invaders DOES seem to change the Legal Framework for these uninvited pests, doesn't it?

Sophistry