New birthright citizenship challenges filed in wake of Supreme Court ruling
Two immigrants rights organization suing over President Trump's birthright citizenship order recast their lawsuit as a class action following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday.
The big picture: The high court imposed new limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies — specifically, Trump's effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S.
But the order left room for broader relief through the filing of class action lawsuits.
Driving the news: Following the ruling Friday, the plaintiffs — CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and a group of expectant mothers — asked a federal judge in Maryland to block Trump's executive order attacking birthright citizenship.
"Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails," the complaint states.
The Supreme Court indicated in its Friday order that class action lawsuits are among the permitted methods to block federal government policy.
"Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict," the suit states.
Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office this year, seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents and undocumented immigrants.
The order was quickly met with legal challenges, which resulted in temporary blocks on the order's enforcement nationwide.
Trump's DOJ asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of those orders, and the high court on Friday imposed such limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies.
CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
14 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump cancels U.S.-Canadian trade talks over tech taxes
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6. Trump on Friday suspended trade talks due to Canada's new Digital Services Tax. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 28 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump cited potential Canadian taxes on U.S. tech companies as his reason for ending trade talks with Canada on Friday. The tech taxes on Amazon, Google, Meta and other U.S. tech firms are due on Monday, and Trump said it is a deal-breaker. "We have just been informed that Canada ... has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American technology companies," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday. He called the tax a "direct and blatant attack on our country" and accused Canada of "copying the European Union, which has done the same thing." "We are hereby terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately," Trump said. His administration in the coming week will notify Canadian officials of the tariff that it will have to pay to do business in the United States, Trump added. Trump last week attended the G7 economic trade summit hosted by Canada and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and sought common ground on trade talks, The Washington Post reported. Officials at U.S. tech firms oppose the Canadian tax, the amount of which is based on the revenues generated by Canadians' use of e-commerce sites, social media and the sales of data. All tech companies that generate more than $14.59 million from such services would be subject to the new 3% Digital Services Tax. The tax is retroactive to 2022 and could cost U.S.-based tech firms up to $3 billion, NBC News reported. Upon learning of Trump halting trade talks, Canadian officials on Friday limited U.S. steel imports and placed a 50% surcharge on steel imports that surpass the quota. Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said the surcharge will help to protect Canadian steel against what he called "unjust U.S. tariffs." He said the Canadian government is prepared to take additional actions, if necessary.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US law firm Susman Godfrey defeats Trump executive order
By Mike Scarcella and David Thomas (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday permanenently blocked a White House executive order against law firm Susman Godfrey, capping a string of court victories for firms targeted for their association with President Donald Trump's perceived enemies. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said Trump's order unlawfully retaliated against Susman for cases it has taken and its efforts to promote racial diversity, violating the firm's rights to free speech and due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. Trump's executive order "goes beyond violating the Constitution and the laws of the United States," AliKhan wrote in her 53-page ruling. "The order threatens the independence of the bar — a necessity for the rule of law." Trump's order had suspended security clearances for Susman's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that granting security clearances is "a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the president." Susman in a statement said AliKhan's ruling was a "resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." AliKhan is the fourth federal judge in Washington to reach a similar conclusion, following wins for Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale in parallel cases. The rulings by a mix of Democratic and Republican-appointed judges each decisively rejected Trump's orders suspending security clearances at the firms, restricting their access to government officials and seeking to cancel federal contracts held by their clients. Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins and Kirkland & Ellis, have settled with the White House to avoid similar actions against them by the administration. Those firms cumulatively pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services to support causes backed by Trump. Some later argued that the threat of being targeted by the administration left them no alternative. Susman in its lawsuit called Trump's order retaliation for its defense of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. The firm represents election technology supplier Dominion Voting Systems in cases that challenged false claims the election was stolen from Trump through widespread voting fraud. Trump also had accused Susman of racial discrimination in its hiring practices. AliKhan at a hearing on May 8 repeatedly questioned a lawyer for the Justice Department about the administration's failure to show that the firm's employment programs or its work for Dominion violated the law. AliKhan held that Trump's executive order "constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the First Amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity." The Justice Department and White House have defended Trump's executive orders against law firms as lawful exercises of presidential power. Trump accused the firms of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his political allies.
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats will force out-loud reading of 940-page megabill
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
