By Rita Cook
WASHINGTON DC – Here we go again watching federal judges flex to see how far they can go. Most recently one such judge pushed against a recent Supreme Court ruling that limits the Federal Court’s ability to block presidential executive orders.
The push was specifically relating to President Trump’s EO to end birthright citizenship.
The EO was meant to go into effect on July 27. At that time, it would only include a limited part of the United States and would be retroactive on any babies born on or after February 20.
The EO addresses birthright citizenship in that a child born and given citizenship is required to have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
The order denies citizenship status to children whose mothers are in the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, tourists or students. It also includes fathers who are not citizens of the United States or permanent residents.
The National Law Review explained the Supreme Court had ruled there was likely a lack of authority for federal district courts to block the president’s executive orders.
The Supreme Court referred to the Judiciary Act of 1789 in a 6 – 3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. and said the “Trump administration was likely to prove that the U.S. Congress did not provide district courts with equitable authority to issue universal injunctions in the Judiciary Act of 1789.”
Even so, earlier this month a U.S. District Judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante went ahead and filed a class action lawsuit with the intention to protect unborn babies who are in jeopardy of being denied birthright citizenship.
Apparently, this was the only move the judge, a George W. Bush appointee, could make to block Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
With the judge’s class action suit, there is now a temporary block on the birthright citizenship quandary.
Laplante’s 38-page order stated he “has no difficulty concluding that the rapid adoption by executive order, without legislation and the attending national debate, of a new government policy of highly questionable constitutionality that would deny citizenship to many thousands of individuals previously granted citizenship under an indisputably longstanding policy, constitutes irreparable harm, and that all class representatives could suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”
Three district courts issued court orders blocking the enforcement of the EO.
However, the Court had already indicated “These injunctions … likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
The court also pointed out “Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that “the Court’s holding allows the government to continue to enforce an unconstitutional order against parties unless they file their own suit.”
Immigration attorneys for undocumented people living in the United States immediately moved into class action lawsuit mode.
Judge Laplante paused his order for seven days to allow the Trump administration time to make an appeal.
The issue of birthright citizenship after Laplante’s order could eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court.
Rita Cook is a world traveler and writer/editor who specializes in writing on travel, auto, crime and politics. A correspondent for Texas Metro News, she has published 11 books and has also produced low-budget films.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login