U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire issued a new nationwide injunction in the birthright case, drawing guidance from the Supreme Court’s recommendations for district courts.
The petitioners asked the court to grant the lawsuit class action status.
The lawyers used the SCOTUS decision to argue that courts could issue nationwide injunctions in class action lawsuits.
From USA Today:
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling July 10 after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by implementation of Trump’s directive.Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president’s policy nationally.
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” LaPlante said after the hour-long hearing. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
LaPlante released his written ruling this evening. Regarding a national class, he wrote (I eliminated the citations for easier reading):
At no point in the briefs do the petitioners request a “nationwide class.” Petitioners request class certification for a harm that most likely affects class members residing in other states. So long as this court adheres to the requirements of Rule 23, this court does not hesitate to certify a class that may include members in all fifty states.This court has rigorously applied Rule 23, carefully considering all of the respondents’ arguments. Respondents have made a generalized objection to the appropriateness of nationwide class actions, which are ubiquitous in federal court. Further, the respondents have failed to identify any conflicts between putative class members and current class members.
And, of course, LaPlante decided to issue the injunction because the petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits that Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment, the executive order will cause irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction, and the injunction is in the public’s interest.
The judge also placed a seven-day stay on his ruling to give President Donald Trump’s administration time to appeal.
Professor Jacobson mentioned the loopholes that SCOTUS created for these justices when ruling on the birthright case.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, warned the district courts would try to get around the ruling:
I write separately to emphasize the majority’s guidance regarding how courts should tailor remedies specific to the parties. Courts must not distort “the rule that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 702 (1979). Otherwise, they risk replicating the problems of universal injunctions under the guise of granting complete relief….For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the “increasingly common” practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions. Hawaii, 585 U. S., at 713 (THOMAS, J., concurring). The Court also makes clear that the completerelief principle provides a ceiling on federal courts’ authority, which must be applied alongside other “principles of equity” and our holding that universal injunctions are impermissible. Ante, at 26. Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be “dutybound” to intervene. Hawaii, 585 U. S., at 721 (THOMAS, J., concurring).
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY