CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire will hear discussions on Thursday regarding the possibility of certifying a class action lawsuit that impacts all infants, particularly those affected by the birthright citizenship restrictions imposed by President Donald Trump.
This lawsuit, brought by a pregnant woman, two parents, and their young children, is among various claims challenging the January directive that denies citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are here illegally or temporarily. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union are advocating to recognize their case as a class action, aiming to halt the enforcement of the order while the legal process unfolds.
“Thousands of babies and their families could face numerous dangers due to the order in just a few weeks, so we need an injunction,” argued the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in court filings submitted on Tuesday.
The case hinges on the 14th Amendment, which states that “everyone born or naturalized in the United States is subject to that jurisdiction and is a citizen of the United States.” The Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to that jurisdiction” allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to children born to mothers in the country illegally, thereby challenging a principle that has stood for over a century in U.S. law.
“The previous interpretation of the citizenship clause created perverse incentives for illegal immigrants, negatively impacting our country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” stated a government attorney in the New Hampshire case. “The Constitution does not contain a clause that grants automatic citizenship to children of individuals who bypass or ignore federal immigration laws.”
Ongoing legal battles across states
Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions to block Trump’s orders, but a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 limited those injunctions, allowing lower courts to act within a 30-day timeframe. In light of this, opponents swiftly returned to court to seek a halt to the changes.
States involved in lawsuits in federal courts in New Jersey and Massachusetts have urged judges to clarify whether a national injunction could be applicable, based on the Supreme Court’s verdict. A hearing is set for July 18.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin expressed hopes of a resolution before the 30-day deadline. He noted, “There’s a 30-day watch, so our aim is to get clarity before that period ends,” in a recent conversation with the Associated Press.
A separate case in Washington state, currently in front of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has prompted the judge to request briefs on the implications of the Supreme Court decision. Washington and other states involved in this case are asking the Court of Appeals to send the matter back to a lower court.
Similarly, plaintiffs in Maryland aim to establish class action lawsuits covering all individuals affected by the order. A judge has set a deadline for legal arguments regarding another nationwide injunction requested by CASA, a nonprofit organization advocating for immigration rights.
Ama Frimpong, CASA’s legal affairs director, reassured members and clients that now is not the moment for panic. “There’s no need to rush,” she stated. “We have several strategies to ensure that this executive order does not take effect.”
Details of the New Hampshire plaintiffs
The New Hampshire plaintiff’s identity is protected by pseudonyms. A woman from Honduras, who has applied for asylum, is expecting her fourth child in October. She explained to the court that her family fled due to gang violence.
“I don’t want my children to live in fear or in hiding. The thought of them being targeted for immigration enforcement worries me,” she expressed. “I’m anxious about the possibility of being separated from my family.”
Another plaintiff, originally from Brazil, has been settled with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for legal permanent residency based on family connections, as his father-in-law is a U.S. citizen.
“My baby holds American citizenship and has future rights,” he wrote.
