Another judge ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order on Monday ending birthright citizenship.
This is the third time a federal judge has ruled against this executive order since Trump signed it on his first day in office.
U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante for the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire said plaintiffs in the case “have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits of their claims.”
“Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; that the potential harm to the Plaintiffs if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to Defendants if the order is granted; and that the issuance of this order is in the public interest,” he wrote.
Laplante said this injunction would take place immediately.
Trump’s executive order says, “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” a White House press release says.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” the press release adds.
The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs in this case, said Laplante’s ruling is the “latest rebuke” of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
“This attempt to deny babies their citizenship is as illegal as it is inhumane, and we will keep fighting until we stop this order for good,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
SangYeob Kim, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Hampshire, said Trump’s executive order “stands in flagrant opposition to our constitutional rights, values, and history.”
“The U.S. Constitution ensures that no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship — a principle that the federal court in New Hampshire reinforced yet again today,” the attorney said.
– – –
Zachery Schmidt is the digital editor of The Star News Network. Email tips to Zachery at [email protected]. Follow Zachery on Twitter @zacheryschmidt2.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
What is the point of adding this language if it doesn’t define a restriction placed on the qualifications for Citizenship???
We need to get rid of these Judges promoting a personal preference rather than a Legal Opinion.
This will surely make it to the Supreme Court and they will strike down Trumps EO. The Constitution is too vague on this issue. We need to amend the Constitution to clarify who is covered under birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court that affirmed birthright citizenship is, coincidentally, the same Supreme Court that decided Plessy V Ferguson. It was the same justice as voting on both matters. It is time for birthright citizenship to go the same way that “separate but equal” has gone. But it will probably take the Supreme Court to do it not an executive order.