ACLU sues Trump over birthright order as Supreme Court clears path for it to take effect
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump's January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth.
While the justices' 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday's lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents.
It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1.
Friday's SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it's absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings.
"The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions."
"A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative.
"Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification," Sotomayor wrote. "For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise to act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review."
The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship "America's most fundamental promise" and claims the executive order threatens to create "a permanent, multigenerational subclass" of children denied legal recognition.
"The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in the case.
"This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history," added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship."
The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." It also references the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens.
The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S.
The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
"Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights," said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January.
"Today's historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority," White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital.
"President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada retaliates against U.S. steel imports after Trump terminates trade talks
President Donald Trump said Friday that he had terminated trade discussions with Canada, citing an incoming Canadian tax on tech companies including those based in the U.S. In a post on Truth Social, Trump referred to Canada as "a very difficult country to trade with" and said that its levy on tech firms — the first payment for which is due Monday — "is a direct and blatant attack on our Country." "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately," he said. "We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period." Last week Canada's finance minister said that he would not delay implementation of the digital services tax — which applies to any tech company making more than $15 million from Canadian internet users — even as U.S. trade talks continue. A lobbying group for some tech giants said the tax, which is retroactive to 2022, would cost U.S. companies as much as $3 billion. Those payments are due beginning June 30. The office of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But late Friday, Canada retaliated against the U.S. by imposing a quota on some steel imports and a 50% surcharge for imports that exceed the quota. Canada's finance minister said the government was acting to protect its industry from "unjust U.S. tariffs." Canada's government said it "remains prepared to take additional steps as needed." Trump's post cuts short what had been a relatively calm period of trade-related announcements — a stretch that had helped markets recover to the all-time highs seen in February. Shortly after Trump's post went live, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes briefly turned negative but rallied later in the afternoon to close at all-time highs. Friday had begun with encouraging comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who indicated the president was open to moving the previously announced deadline for trade deals from July 9 to Labor Day — and that country-by-country duties themselves were negotiable. A few hours later, Trump said that initial July 9 deadline was not set in stone, saying the U.S. could either extend or shorten it. Canada is the second-largest U.S. trading partner. Currently, the U.S. has a tariff rate of 25% applied to Canadian imports that don't comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the trade deal Trump inked during his first term before he upended it with a flurry of tariff announcements in his second. The 25% tariff on non-compliant Canadian goods excludes energy products, which are subject to a 10% rate. Canada is also heavily impacted by Trump's 50% tax on steel and aluminum imports — the country is the largest foreign supplier of those materials to the U.S. And it has also been impacted by the 25% duties Trump has imposed on foreign-made vehicles and auto parts. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Budget panels approve $58.8B spending bill in late night votes
The Legislature is scheduled to give formal approval to the $58.8 billion spending bill on Monday. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Budget panels in both chambers of the Legislature in late-night votes Friday approved an annual spending bill that Senate Democrats have said will cost $58.8 billion. Legislators' proposal spends more than the plan Gov. Phil Murphy unveiled in late February, leaves the state with a surplus too small to meet a statutory requirement for a new tax relief program, and expands New Jersey's deficit to $1.5 billion (Murphy proposed $1.2 billion). If the budget stands at $58.8 billion, it would amount to the highest level in state history. The full Legislature is expected to give the plan a final vote on Monday. The next fiscal year begins Tuesday. Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) on Friday read aloud a statement from an absent Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the Senate's budget chair. 'This is a budget that will help move New Jersey forward in the face of difficult fiscal conditions and severe economic uncertainty. We are making the best use of resources to address the priority needs of the state's residents in a fiscally responsible way,' the statement read. On net, lawmakers' changes to Murphy's proposed budget add $728 million in spending beyond what the governor sought, and while the total effect of their revenue raisers was not immediately clear, the state appears poised to take in less money from recurring revenue than under the governor's proposal. Republican officials, in what has become a yearly rejoinder, criticized the late-night budget votes, which were held before bill text was available to the public. Members of the press received copies of the spending bill at 8:37 p.m. Friday, but the bills were not posted online Friday. 'It's the complete opposite of what good government looks like,' said Sen. Tony Bucco (R-Morris). 'Their rushed, opaque budget charade is exactly why New Jersey is in the fiscal mess we've found ourselves in. There's no accountability, no planning, and absolutely no transparency, just last-minute deals and political favors pushed through in the dead of night when no one is looking.' Friday's vote by the Senate's budget committee capped an unusual process that began when the panel met on Thursday but ended its meeting without a vote on the budget. Instead of adjourning, the committee took a 24-hour-long recess that allowed members who would not be present Friday, like Sarlo, to record their votes early on a budget bill that did not yet exist. Witnesses and lawmakers praised the budget's full $7.2 billion pension payment, and the more than $12 billion it sets aside for formulaic school aid. However, some expressed concern that the state would still spend more than it brings in. 'I appreciate the responsible side of this budget where it's full pension payment, it's a full school aid payment, a healthier surplus than we're used to, but there's no signs of the structural reforms we truly need to give our next governor a healthier budget,' said Chris Emigholz, chief government affairs officer for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-Essex), her chamber's budget chair, said the state's next governor, who will take office in January, would need to determine whether some programs should be jettisoned. Murphy is barred from seeking a third term in November. 'Whoever comes in, I think that there's going to be some decisions that are going to have to be made. I think whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, they're going to have to take a look at especially some of the senior proposals just to see what we can do,' she said. Much of the new spending comes from legislative add-ons — variably called district spending, Christmas tree items, or simply 'pork.' Those items are numerous and varied, and their costs total in the hundreds of millions. They include millions in capital funding to individual school districts, like the $21 million Newark schools will receive, or for local infrastructure projects, like $8 million set aside for roadway improvements in Camden. Other changes would undo cuts to college financial assistance for students and reverse a $20 million cut Murphy proposed to community colleges' operating aid. Those cuts had rankled lawmakers and spurred alarm from university leaders. The budget would pull an additional $70 million from the state's clean energy fund to pay for salaries at NJ Transit, plus an additional $50 million to underwrite more general state spending. NJ Transit was already set to receive a separate $70.1 million from the fund as part of an annual diversion. The bill assumes the state will find $100 million in savings on state employees' health care benefits in the first six months of 2026, though it provides no suggestion for how officials realize such savings. Instead, it asks state and public employee representatives to each submit their own plans. The boosted spending would take the state's surplus to $6.7 billion, according to budget documents that had not undergone technical review by the Office of Legislative Services. Lawmakers augmented reserves by increasing a diversion from a debt defeasance fund — which is meant to reduce debt payments by immediately paying debt down or avoiding it altogether — to $555 million, from $250 million. The proposed level of surplus should trigger a statutory provision to pause payments from Stay NJ, a nascent property tax relief program that promises to cut seniors' property tax bills in half. The provision is intended to halt the program if the state doesn't have enough money to pay for it, but lawmakers have previously overwritten it. The budget includes a range of new or increased taxes, including a hike to rates paid on cigarettes, electronic cigarette fluid, high-dollar property sales, and casinos' online wagering wins. Lawmakers followed Murphy's lead on nicotine taxes, exactly matching proposals he made in his budget message, but approved lower tax rates for casinos' online wagering wins than the governor had sought. Those rates rise to 19.75% in lawmakers' budget plan, rather than the 25% Murphy pitched. Legislators made broader changes to a surcharge on realty transfers of more than $1 million. Rather than doubling that tax rate to 2% and imposing a 3% rate on property sales worth more than $2 million, legislators voted to raise rates to 2% for sales worth between $2 million and $2.5 million and increase them by an additional half percentage point for every $500,000 in additional value, to a cap of 3.5% at $3.5 million. Their proposal also calls for property sellers, rather than buyers, to pay the fee, a change that would decrease upfront costs for those buying buildings worth at least $1 million and reduce the profits from such property sales. Legislators eschewed some taxes sought by Murphy. They skipped a proposed 10% hike to the state's alcoholic beverage tax that was forecast to boost collections by $18.5 million. They also declined to enact a per-truck warehousing fee estimated to generate $20 million in revenue. A degree of uncertainty remains around the budget. GOP lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are exploring broad changes to federal programs that could pull billions in federal Medicaid funding, among other things, from New Jersey. 'In many ways, this budget may be a hypothetical document,' said Peter Chen, senior policy analyst at progressive think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective. 'When those cuts start coming, we'll have to come up with the revenue somewhere. Otherwise, we will face devastating cuts to many of the programs that we all hold dear.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bill sets rules on sales tax hike
GUILFORD COUNTY — State Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham and Senate president pro tem, is pushing a bill through the N.C. General Assembly to set guidelines on how revenue from a quarter-cent sales tax increase could be spent if the referendum is approved by Guilford County voters in the November 2026 general election. Berger, whose district includes parts of Guilford County, said Thursday that the Senate approved an amended version of House Bill 305 that addresses the referendum issue. During its meeting June 18, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to yet again place the measure before county voters. Voters have rejected the quarter-cent sales tax increase six times in the past 20 years, most recently in the November 2024 general election. While the commissioners have said they want to use the additional revenue to support education, existing law doesn't restrict the use of funds collected for education or any particular purpose, Berger said in a statement. House Bill 305 would specify funds collected through a quarter-cent sales tax increase can only be used for classroom teacher salary supplements, fire protection equipment and services, Guilford Technical Community College and a small amount for municipalities, Berger said. A quarter-cent sales tax increase is expected to generate $25 million annually. 'Voters going to the polls in November 2026 need to know exactly what they're being asked to vote on,' Berger said. 'House Bill 305 now provides them with information so they can make an educated decision. I believe putting strict guardrails on the revenue collected gives taxpayers relevant information and guarantees the funds will be used as promised.' Democratic Guilford County Board of Commissioners Chairman Skip Alston said that he welcomes Berger's initiative. Having the quarter-cent sales increase revenue specified for certain uses will reassure voters and make them more likely to cast a ballot for the referendum, Alston told The High Point Enterprise. House Bill 305 now goes back to the House for a concurrence approval vote. Since the legislation is a local bill, it isn't subject to veto oversight by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.
