Attorneys Push For Class Action In Birthright Citizenship Case After Supreme Court Ruling

Following a pivotal Supreme Court ruling that reshaped the landscape of judicial relief, attorneys are intensifying their efforts to secure a class action in a high-profile birthright citizenship case, challenging a controversial order issued by former President Donald Trump. This strategic shift unfolded during a recent conference in a Maryland federal court, where U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman grappled with the intricate implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, signaling a new chapter in the ongoing legal battle over immigration law.

The impetus for this pivot came from the Supreme Court’s June 27 opinion, which, while largely disfavoring the use of sweeping nationwide injunctions, explicitly left open the avenue for plaintiffs to seek broad relief through class actions. This ruling provided a crucial alternative for legal teams aiming to block executive policies comprehensively. Seizing this opportunity, attorneys representing immigrant organizations and pregnant women swiftly moved to ask the federal court in Maryland to recognize a class of individuals who would be rendered ineligible for birthright citizenship under the purview of the Trump administration’s directive, underscoring the adaptability of legal strategy in the face of evolving judicial guidance.

A central and immediate point of contention during the June 30 conference revolved around the potential impact on babies born to undocumented parents. Judge Boardman repeatedly pressed the administration on whether it believed it could deport such recently born infants. Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg asserted his understanding that the government was bound by a 30-day reprieve from deportation, a consequence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion which, while halting lower court injunctions, granted a temporary delay for the most critical section to take effect. Unconvinced by verbal assurance alone, Judge Boardman demanded a written submission from the Justice Department by the following day, emphasizing that the administration’s response would heavily influence her subsequent actions regarding another potential block on the order.

The discussions further delved into the stringent requirements for class certification, with particular attention paid to Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. This opinion urged courts to “scrupulously” adhere to federal rules surrounding class certification, cautioning that universal injunctions could “return from the grave” if these safeguards were not diligently observed. Conversely, William Powell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, countered by noting that Alito’s opinion was joined by only one other justice, suggesting that Judge Boardman could still grant broad relief for the proposed class without formal certification. Powell cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision to tentatively block Trump’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, where a majority appeared to block deportations for a putative class even without prior district court certification, highlighting a potential precedent for broader judicial action.

Jurisdictional complexities also surfaced, as Justice Department attorney Rosenberg contended that Judge Boardman lacked the authority to replace her prior nationwide injunction with another block, given that the case had already been transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held jurisdiction over her initial injunction. Judge Boardman, however, appeared unpersuaded by this argument. Demonstrating her intent to proceed, she ordered expedited briefing and converted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, a legal mechanism generally offering a more permanent form of relief, indicating her determination to provide substantial judicial oversight in the matter.

There appeared to be some lingering disagreement regarding the precise scope and implications of the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision. Justice Barrett’s opinion notably halted the section of Trump’s order establishing a policy against issuing documents recognizing citizenship for certain individuals, including children of illegal immigrant parents. However, another facet of her opinion allowed the executive branch to develop and issue public guidance on the implementation of Trump’s order, a reference to Section 3. Plaintiff attorney Powell expressed significant concern that this section, coupled with Trump’s expressed views on the limitations of birthright citizenship, could still lead to adverse enforcement actions for individuals like the plaintiffs, underscoring the continued legal uncertainty and the potential for new challenges stemming from the nuanced judicial ruling.

This ongoing litigation, known as CASA Inc. v. Donald Trump, stands as one of several cases that previously resulted in nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration’s policies. Crucially, the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision did not render a judgment on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy itself, but instead focused on the legality and scope of nationwide injunctions. This leaves lower courts, including Judge Boardman in Maryland, with the challenging task of adjusting their orders while navigating the grey areas surrounding the potential narrowing of injunctions, even those originating from state governments. The current proceedings underscore the intricate legal dance between executive authority, judicial review, and the fundamental principles of immigration law in the United States.