A coalition of civil rights organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund, filed a federal lawsuit in New Hampshire on Tuesday challenging two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump that seek to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, days after the orders were signed.
Rights Groups File Federal Suit Against Trump's New Executive Orders on Birthright Citizenship
A coalition of civil rights organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund, filed a federal lawsuit in New Hampshire on Tuesday challenging two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump that seek to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, days after the orders were signed.
The two executive orders address different aspects of birthright citizenship. One sought to expand existing narrow categories under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution under which some individuals are already deemed ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth. A second order directed the heads of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to take measures against the practice of mothers travelling to the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth, referred to as 'birth tourism.'
The filing follows a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in June in which the court struck down an earlier, broader Trump administration attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated there was 'scant evidence' for the administration's position that the 14th Amendment was intended only to guarantee citizenship to children of formerly enslaved people and not to all persons born in the country.
The plaintiff organisations argued in their challenge that the Supreme Court's June decision prevents any revision of the current exceptions under the Constitution and prior court rulings. A representative of the Legal Defense Fund stated the administration's new orders amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to redefine citizenship through executive action.
One justice in the majority, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, declined to characterise the earlier administration effort as unconstitutional, a position some supporters of the administration's effort have cited as grounds for continued legal pursuit.
The new executive order sought to instruct government agencies not to issue documents recognising US citizenship to children of diplomatic staff residing in the United States, alleged members of organisations designated as terrorist groups, people deemed to be participating in a commercial transaction to ensure a child is born in the United States, and certain persons born in US territories.
Trump's White House deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, had previously indicated a challenge to the Supreme Court's June decision was planned, but the administration did not file a petition asking the court to reconsider its ruling before a late-July deadline passed.
Several Republicans have sought to use birthright citizenship as a campaign issue ahead of November midterm elections, characterising the Supreme Court's ruling as a conservative rallying point. Polling cited in the source text shows broad public support for the practice, though other immigration issues remain more contested.
Legal observers have described Trump's latest orders as a test of the boundaries of the June Supreme Court ruling, though it is not established whether the court would agree to hear a new case or consider the matter already resolved.
- The specific legal theories or constitutional arguments advanced in the new lawsuit are not detailed beyond a general reference to the June Supreme Court ruling
- The text of the two executive orders is not reproduced or fully summarised
- The identity of the presiding judge or court division in New Hampshire is not stated
- The precise polling figures cited to show public support for birthright citizenship are not provided
- Whether the Department of State or Department of Homeland Security have taken any concrete steps in response to the second executive order is not established
- The specific territorial births referenced in the executive order are not identified
- The administration's formal legal response to the new lawsuit is not included
Read the original at Al Jazeera English