In New Hampshire and around the nation, there is now more uncertainty regarding the future of birthright citizenship due to the Supreme Court’s decision restricting countrywide injunctions. The ruling is still being scrutinized by legal experts.
What we know is as follows.
What does the decision mean for New Hampshire?
According to the court’s decision, the injunctions in lawsuits contesting the order only apply to the 22 states that are parties to the lawsuit, including the neighboring states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Since New Hampshire and 27 other states did not file a lawsuit against the federal government to overturn the executive order issued by the Trump administration, the birthright citizenship restriction may take effect on July 27.
What s happening in New Hampshire right now?
Filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who might be impacted by the executive order was one among the legal options available to oppose it, according to the Supreme Court.
The ACLU of New Hampshire and other organizations responded to the decision by requesting that a class of infants and their parents be included in the executive order. They would probably be eligible for extra safeguards while the claims are being decided if the court grants the class approval.
According to Cody Wofsy, lead attorney in this case and deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants Rights Project, every court that has considered this harsh order has found it to be unlawful. We are fighting to ensure that President Trump cannot violate any child’s right to citizenship, and the Supreme Court’s ruling made no indication to the contrary.
Unlike its neighboring recent England states earlier this year, New Hampshire’s Attorney General’s office did not sign onto a suit, and it is unknown if they will in light of this recent verdict.
Multiple requests for response from NHPR were not answered by the Attorney General’s office or Governor Kelly Ayotte’s office.
What does this new case argue?
According to the lawsuit, any children who could be impacted by this order are regarded as a class, including Barbara, a resident of New Hampshire.
She is expecting her fourth kid and is a Honduran asylum applicant. Since the executive order would forbid citizenship documents from being granted to children born to undocumented immigrants or parents with valid but temporary status, she is unsure if the child will be eligible for citizenship under it.
According to Barbara’s declaration, she wants her unborn child, who is expected this autumn, to have access to possibilities like school and legal employment so they may start a life for themselves. I want my kid to be protected, too. My child shouldn’t have to live in hiding and terror.
She went on, “I don’t want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement.”
According to the parties bringing this complaint, some children may not be protected because the Supreme Court’s ruling limited the types of injunctions that apply.
Judge Joseph LaPlante of the federal district court requested assurances from the Department of Justice that the government will not deport or remove call members prior to July 27 during a status conference hearing on Monday.
According to DOJ lawyer Brad Rosenberg, that’s how I interpret the executive order.
Thursday, July 10 is the date of the hearing in the action for an expedited preliminary injunction for nationwide class-wide relief.
What does this mean for the previous case filed in New Hampshire?
The ACLU of New Hampshire and the Dover-based non-profit Indonesian Community Support filed a case earlier this year, and a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction.
They were given temporary protection until early August, when arguments could be heard. According to the ACLU of New Hampshire, the Supreme Court’s ruling has no bearing on the case’s merits or the imposed injunction.
What are some local advocates saying?
The 14th Amendment’s language stating that citizenship is applicable to children born in the United States and under American jurisdiction is the specific focus of Trump’s order.
Congress has up to now construed that clause to extend to all newborns born in the United States, with a few exceptions for children born to foreign diplomats and in certain other situations.
For anyone of African heritage, birthright citizenship is a delicate subject, according to Minister Ray Ealy of the New Fellowship Baptist Church of Nashua. He clarified that it was first established to guarantee that Black individuals under slavery were treated as citizens, and that it eventually extended to include immigrant children. He expressed concern about the potential politicization of citizenship in the future to suppress opposition.
He stated, “I don’t want anyone to be able to tell anybody here that they’re not a citizen.” We should all be citizens of the same nation, and no group should be superior to another. And we tarnish America once we do that.
Subscribe to your email for more New Hampshire news: Get the Rundown newsletter for free.
