In major development, Trump's birthright citizenship order blocked in America-wide class action case

In a major ruling on July 10, a US federal judge halted the Trump administration's attempt to limit birthright citizenship in the United States. This development comes after the U.S. Supreme Court recently modified the scope of nationwide injunctions, which had previously been used to challenge various presidential policies.

District Judge Joseph Laplante's decision to issue a new order against the enforcement of the executive directive marks a significant moment in ongoing legal challenges regarding immigration and citizenship rights.

As the legal proceedings continue, the future of birthright citizenship in the United States remains uncertain, with potential repercussions for countless families. The latest case underscores the delicate balance between executive power and constitutional rights, a debate that is likely to resonate well beyond the courtroom.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organisations filed a lawsuit shortly after the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on June 27. This ruling restricted judges' abilities to issue broad injunctions against the administration's policies.

The lawsuit was aimed at protecting non-U.S. citizens living in America whose newborns could be affected by Trump's directive, which is set to take effect on July 27.

The plaintiffs argued that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalised in the United States.

Under the proposed policy, children born in the U.S. would not be granted citizenship unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or holds a green card.

If enacted, this could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns each year, according to estimates from Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates. The Justice Department contended that the executive order aligns with constitutional standards and sought to dismiss the case by challenging the class action status.

Implications of the Ruling

Judge Laplante, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, had previously indicated that Trump's order likely contradicted the constitutional provisions regarding citizenship. In a recent ruling, he had limited the injunction specifically to the members of the three immigrant rights organisations involved in the lawsuit.

The ACLU later advocated for a broader class action to encompass all affected families across the nation, arguing that without such measures, thousands could be left unprotected.

The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the substantive legality of Trump's executive order, focusing instead on the judicial authority of lower courts. While the administration viewed the decision as a triumph, it has not deterred federal judges from issuing orders that block aspects of Trump's agenda they deem unlawful.

According to citizenship subject experts, the ongoing confrontation and the blocking of Trump's executive order highlighted the complexities surrounding immigration policies and the rights of non-citizens, as well as the role of the judiciary in shaping these issues.