Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
June 30 - President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.
During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.
Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.
Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.
In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday. The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide.
But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.
William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
"They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said.
Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.
Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order.
The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then.
"Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing.
Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.
Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order.
"It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Biggest bill ever signed': Donald Trump's first comments after ‘Big Beautiful Bill' passes US Congress
House Republicans on Thursday passed the 'ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL' in a 218-214 vote, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's signature, scheduled for July 4. 'Our Party is UNITED like never before and our Country is hot,' Trump wrote on Truth Social moments after the vote, thanking Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and 'all of the wonderful Republican Members of Congress who helped us deliver on our promises. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now ' The president added that Americans would soon be 'richer, safer, and prouder than ever before' as the nation embarked on what he described as a 'new Golden Age.' Republican lawmakers are expected to join Trump at a White House 'signing celebration' on Friday at 4 pm (local time). Trump said, 'Together we can do things that were not even imagined possible less than one year ago. We will keep working, and winning congratulations, America!' The 'Big Beautiful Bill' delivers massive changes across tax, spending, and security policy. At its core, the legislation makes permanent the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts first enacted during Trump's 2017 term and introduces new breaks, including the elimination of taxes on tips, one of Trump's key campaign promises. On the spending side, it enacts $1.2 trillion in cuts, targeting Medicaid and food stamp programs by imposing stricter eligibility requirements, new work mandates for some parents and older adults, and reduced federal reimbursements to states. The bill also rolls back billions in tax credits for wind and solar energy, a move critics say will trigger major investment losses in the renewable sector. Additionally, it allocates $350 billion toward border security and immigration enforcement, including expanded deportation efforts, partially financed by new fees on immigrants. To accommodate the fiscal package, the bill raises the national debt ceiling by $5 trillion—a provision that drew pushback from some Republican lawmakers.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Congress approves sweeping student loan changes in ‘Big Beautiful Bill': What it means for borrowers
Congress has passed President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," overhauling federal student loans. The legislation restricts repayment options, caps PLUS loans, and holds colleges accountable for graduate earnings. While Public Service Loan Forgiveness remains, stricter eligibility for social programs is introduced, sparking debate over affordability and support for vulnerable populations. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's changing for borrowers? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Political response What should borrowers do? If you're in an income-driven plan: Prepare for a transition to new repayment options in the next few years. If you're considering PLUS loans: Review the new borrowing caps and consider alternative ways to finance education. If you're in public service: Stay updated on PSLF rules, especially if you're in a medical or dental residency. In a landmark decision, Congress has passed President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' triggering the most extensive changes to federal student loans in a generation. The legislation, which cleared both the House and Senate on narrow party-line votes, is now headed to the president's desk for overhaul will dramatically reshape how Americans borrow for college, repay student debt , and access forgiveness bill eliminates most existing income-driven repayment options. By mid-2026, borrowers will have to choose between a new, less flexible income-based plan or a standard plan with fixed payments. The new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) stretches repayment up to 30 years before any remaining balance is forgiven, likely increasing total interest for and Parent PLUS loans, once a way to cover nearly unlimited college costs, are now sharply restricted. Graduate students will face a $100,000 lifetime borrowing cap ($200,000 for professional degrees), and Parent PLUS loans are capped at $65,000 per student. The Grad PLUS program is eliminated will only remain eligible for federal loan programs if their graduates earn more than typical high school or bachelor's degree holders in their state. This move is designed to pressure colleges to deliver real economic value, but could cut off funding for underperforming bill keeps PSLF in place, but future regulatory tweaks could make qualifying harder. Borrowers in medical or dental residencies, for example, may soon find their time in training no longer counts toward legislation also introduces stricter eligibility for Medicaid and nutrition assistance, aiming to reduce federal spending. Critics warn this could leave many low-income Americans without critical leaders argue the bill is necessary to rein in government spending and address the ballooning costs of student loan programs. They point to inflation and the expense of previous loan pauses as justification for the and borrower advocates counter that the new rules will make college less affordable, reduce options for struggling borrowers, and push more families into debt. They warn that the bill's cuts to social programs will hit the most vulnerable hardest.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
After Supreme Court order, Noida starts to plug decade-old missing link
Noida: The Supreme Court has cleared the decks for the construction of a 200-metre stretch in the city that remained stalled for over a decade because of legal disputes over land acquisition in Hajipur village. The order will enable the completion of a vital link connecting sectors 99/100 with sectors 46/47. Most of the road project linking the sectors has been ready for years, except for the final disputed segment. The new connection is critical for commuters as it promises to ease traffic congestion by providing a direct route between sectors 46, 47, and 99 to sector 98, eliminating the current need for making long detours through sectors 100, 101, and Hajipur. The project hit a roadblock in 2003 when a villager, Hukum Singh, challenged the land acquisition notified in 2001-2002 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He moved the Allahabad high court, which dismissed the petition in Jan 2021 and noted that the land was already vested with the govt through an award passed by the land acquisition officer under Section 11A. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The court emphasised that while the interim order maintained a status quo over existing structures, it didn't halt the acquisition process. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo Since the govt order on land wasn't separately challenged, the acquisition became final, and rendered the petition "inconsequential". After Singh died, his legal heirs approached the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the road project. Here, too, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeal on Nov 21 last year. "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the high court," the SC bench observed. The apex court declined to examine "subsequent developments" as they weren't part of the original record or considered by the high court. However, it left room for the petitioners to pursue separate legal remedies for fresh issues if permitted under law. To complete the road, the Authority plans to remove illegal structures on the disputed land, which includes 10-12 shops, concrete buildings, and around 70 slum dwellings, with police help. "No case related to this matter is pending in any court. Our legal department has verified that. Considering public convenience and Noida's planned development, the construction of this road has become all the more essential," an Authority official said.
