A federal judge agreed on Thursday to issue a new national block against the executive order of US President Donald Trump to end citizenship by birth.
Judge Joseph Laplante’s decision is significant, since the Supreme Court limited last month the power of the judges of lower instances of. However, the possibility of the complainants seeks a wide blockade of the order through collective actions, as happened this Thursday in the US state of New Hampshire.
In providing the decision, the judge granted the request of immigration expert lawyers to certify a collective action that “will be composed only of those who are deprived of it.” It also issued a preliminary injunction that indefinitely blocks the application of the order against children already born – and even by birth – which would be affected by politics.
“The preliminary injunction does not raise big doubts for this Court,” said Joseph Laplante during the hearing. “The deprivation of US citizenship and an abrupt change in a longtime policy … This is an irrepalable damage.”
American citizenship, added the judge, “is the greatest privilege in the world.”
The judge, appointed by former President George W. Bush, said he would suspend his decision for a few days to give Trump administration time to appeal.
Joseph Laplante’s decision could reveal a critical barrier against Trump’s policy, at a time when other courts try to review their decisions in the light of the Supreme Court’s deliberation.
In February, the judge indefinitely blocked the application of the executive order only against members of several non -profit groups that would be affected by it.
“The executive order contradicts the text of the fourteenth amendment and the unchanged centenary precedent that interprets it,” wrote Joseph Laplante at the time.
Several other judges also concluded that Trump’s order was unconstitutional, but its injunctions had a national effect, which led the administration to resort successively until the case reached the Supreme Court.
Thursday’s hearing focused exclusively on a request from immigration expert lawyers to certify a group of individuals who would include “all born children and born” who would be affected by the Order of Trump, as well as their parents.
“No court in the country has agreed with the administration on the constitutional fund of the fund. All courts said this order is unconstitutional, so we hope to win this issue,” said Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the US Union for Civil Freedoms (ACLU), who helped present both cases in New Hampshire. “The issue before the court this Thursday is, after all: procedurally, how will we ensure that each child is protected?”
Collective actions require “group representatives”, that is, individuals who will represent the other members.
In this case, the proposed representatives include a Honduran asylum applicant – referred to in court documents such as “Barbara” – who lives in New Hampshire and is pregnant, and a Brazilian man – referred to as “Mark” – who is trying to obtain the status of legal permanent resident. Mark’s wife, who is illegally in the US, gave birth in March.
“If the order remains in force,” the lawyers wrote, “these children will face numerous obstacles to life in the United States, including stigma and possible apatridia; loss of voting rights, serving on federal juries and many elective positions, and working on various federal jobs; ineligibility for various federal programs; and possible prison, detention and deportation to countries that may never have even known.”
Signed by Trump on January 20, the Executive Order, entitled “Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” said the federal government would not “issue documents recognizing US citizenship” to any children born on American soil, daughters of parents who were in the country illegally or legally, but temporarily.
The Supreme Court ordered, in its decision of 27 June, that the administration will not be able to start applying the order for 30 days, although the government can begin to develop guidance on how the policy will be implemented.
In other court proceedings against Trump’s order, the lower courts across the country asked the parties to present written legal arguments on how the Supreme decision may affect national injunctions issued in these cases. New hearings are expected in the coming days and weeks.
However, this process will take time and it is unclear whether any of these courts will restrict your injunctions before Trump is allowed to apply citizenship policy by birth.
