A swath of Democratic-led states and civil rights groups have filed the first lawsuits challenging executive orders Donald Trump signed after taking office, including one that seeks to roll back birthright citizenship in the US.
A coalition of 18 Democratic-led states along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston on Tuesday arguing the Republican president’s effort to end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of the US constitution.
That lawsuit followed a pair of similar cases filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrant organizations and an expectant mother in the hours after Trump signed the executive order, marking the first major litigation challenging parts of his agenda since he took office.
“State attorneys general have been preparing for illegal actions like this one, and today’s immediate lawsuit sends a clear message to the Trump administration that we will stand up for our residents and their basic constitutional rights,” the New Jersey attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said in a statement.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuits, which were all filed in federal courts in Boston or Concord, New Hampshire, take aim at a central piece of Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown, an order directing federal agencies not to recognize US citizenship for children born in the United States to mothers who are in the country illegally or are present temporarily, such as visa holders, and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.
More lawsuits by Democratic-led states and advocacy groups challenging other aspects of Trump’s agenda are expected, with cases already on file challenging the Elon Musk-led, ill-defined “department of government efficiency” and an order the Republican signed weakening job protections for civil servants.
Any rulings from judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire would be reviewed by the Boston-based 1st US circuit court of appeals, whose five active federal judges are all appointees of Democratic presidents, a rarity nationally.
The lawsuits argue that the executive order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the US constitution’s 14th amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen.
The complaints cite the US supreme court’s 1898 ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark, a decision holding that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to US citizenship.
If allowed to stand, Trump’s order would mean more than 150,000 children born annually in the United States would be denied for the first time the right to citizenship, according to the office of the Massachusetts attorney general, Andrea Joy Campbell.
“President Trump does not have the authority to take away constitutional rights,” she said in a statement.
The plaintiffs challenging the order include a woman living in Massachusetts identified only as “O Doe” who is in the country through temporary protected status and is due to give birth in March.
Temporary protected status is available to people whose home countries have experienced natural disasters, armed conflicts or other extraordinary events and currently covers more than 1 million people from 17 nations.
Several other lawsuits challenging aspects of Trump’s other early executive actions are also pending.
The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents federal government employees in 37 agencies and departments, late on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging an order Trump signed that makes it easier to fire thousands of federal agency employees and replace them with political loyalists.
