The left uses the class action loophole in CASA, just as Alito predicted
What did Alito predict? I wrote about it here:
But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of “nationwide class relief,” and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.
Give that man a gold star, because here’s what just happened:
Judge Issues New Nationwide Injunction on Birthright Using SCOTUS Guidance
The judge “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.”
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.”
Very predictable. Now what will happen? SCOTUS will almost certainly have to rule again. Banning class action relief in cases such as this might be more difficult to justify, although I’m not sure. Note that Alito mentioned Rule 23; that’s the rule governing class action suits. Please take a look; your eyes may glaze over. Reading it reminds me why I detested my first-year Civil Procedure course.
It seems to me – and this is just winging it on my part – that a suit like this, if it’s on behalf of children of the future who might be born here, may not define a proper class because they don’t exist at present. I assumed that undoing birthright citizenship would not, as far as I know, work retroactively to mean that those born here in the past would lose citizenship. When I looked up Trump’s actual EO on the subject, issued on January 20 of 2025, I found that it said that it applied only to babies meeting the criteria who would be born after thirty days after the issuance of the EO. And so it seems to me that the class action would be limited to babies born from late February till now, and that perhaps that would be a proper class action suit.
I still don’t know for sure whether the current suit meets that criterion, but perhaps it does. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it does. Ultimately, no matter what, SCOTUS will be needing to rule on birthright citizenship itself. And prior to that, SCOTUS will probably need to clarify how a proper class action suit would have to work, and whether this one complies.
I see also that the suit was filed “on behalf of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States whose babies might be affected.” Does it matter that it’s parents and not the babies themselves? I think it might, because it’s not the parents who would be deprived of citizenship, it’s their babies (including those not yet born?). I’m having trouble finding the relevant facts on this.
In addition, the same article says this:
Under the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s executive order would take effect on July 27.
So does that mean it never took effect as originally intended? That would mean that all babies affected are as yet unborn. Do they have a right to a class action? Do their parents? And having a right to a class action doesn’t mean that you win a class action, of course. For that, there must be a decision on the merits of the EO.
NOTE: Commenter “Ray Van Dune” makes a comment today that I think is relevant, although it doesn’t bear directly on the case at hand:
I have not heard this anywhere, but it seems obvious that the Democrats long to make the Trump administration act “above the law”, since they see that as proven to be resonating with the average American.
Trouble is, appealing a decision is not acting above the law, as it is perfectly lawful behavior! Worse, when Trump succeeds on appeal, it is easily misunderstood as a permanent victory, which it sometimes isn’t. This is driving the Dems crazy… and it’s a short drive!
So this lawfare strategy needs to be understood for what it is, an effort to force Trump to defy the courts, and be seen to do so! That is why there seems to be no limit to the lengths Dems will stretch the law. They know that once they can force Trump to tell a court to go to hell, they can start using their favorite meme again – Trump thinks he is above the law!
Indeed. They use the meme anyway, of course. But it will have more teeth if he actually does defy a court ruling, especially a SCOTUS ruling.
IANAL, but shouldn’t there be a way to sue the lawyers who bring these suits? I’d bet anything that it’s a small bunch that collude with each other. Where’s the money coming from that pays them, they certainly don’t work for free.
That’s some rule, Rule 23.
Now if it would be properly applied…
huxley:
Literary reference duly noted. 🙂
I don’t see how ‘immigration rights activists’ have standing to bring such a suit. Nor do I see how they, who are not unborn children of foreigners, have an actionable claim.
“not unborn children”
Conceived and born. #MeToo
Because Democrats are such stringent and meticulous upholders of the law…
Why would SCOTUS even want to consider a case where the plaintiffs don’t exist? Wouldn’t that be a political question and best left to congress?
The dumber the injunction, the more easily overturned.
But it may not be Trump who is the target, but the Supreme Court. The Dems may be counting on generating enough anti-Supreme Court sentiment to get away with court-packing or some other dilution or restriction of the current Court’s authority.
E.g.,
‘Could City-Owned Grocery Stores Survive New York’s Shoplifting Plague?
‘The root of Gotham’s “food desert” problem is growing crime and disorder, not greed or profiteering.’—
https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-city-zohran-mamdani-grocery-stores-crime-shoplifting
H/T Powerline blog.
– – – – – – – –
BTW, Trump is ALWAYS the target…as is anyone and anything that appears to support him. Hence the Constitution is also a target; and yes, SCOTUS as well, since it “resorts” to the Constitution to—according to the uber-righteous—“help” Trump.
The Dems have become monstrous, if imbecilic, tedious and extremely dangerous tribalists…
The left has decided that their interests lie with foreign scofflaws, not Americans, 60% or more of whom want ALL illegals deported. The EO is one thing, but the left doesn’t want ANY current immigration laws on the books to be enforced.
My worry is that the riots we saw last month will look like child’s play by comparison with what the left will do if they feel the need to step up the violence to get their way.
In Breaker Morant it was Rule 303. Our leftist (insect) overlords seem to want it to go to that.
The same judicial tyranny imposed on Israel is now the last resort being tried in this country, now, for the children, born, imaginary, and otherwise; the universal children.
Here is the case docket, with filings available as pdf’s:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70651853/barbara-v-trump/
Sgt. Joe Friday:
Yes, armed insurrection is the next action when the current judicial criminality fails for the left.
FAFO
I don’t care for class action suits, but this one does at first glance seem to fit Rule 23 pretty well. But maybe the problem of lives not yet in being is a bigger procedural hurdle than I realize.
I don’t see how ‘immigration rights activists’ have standing to bring such a suit. Nor do I see how they, who are not unborn children of foreigners, have an actionable claim.
I’d love to see the how many of these of immigration rights activists are abortion rights activists. I expect the schadenfreude would be outright sinful!
Barry Meislin on July 10, 2025 at 6:04 pm
“The Dems have become monstrous, if imbecilic, tedious and extremely dangerous tribalists…”
Monstrous, tedious, and dangerous, yes. But not so imbecilic if they can plan and exploit some of the issues and agenda items raised here and elsewhere (e.g., NC on court packing today and Bob Wilson yesterday on convention of the states prospects, etc.). But it will speak poorly of our constitution and the founders/ framers if our system is so fragile it cannot withstand the vengeance of the Leftists we are seeing or projecting now. They (and especially the far Left end of the Dem party) are not 10 feet tall (AOC, Walz, Biden, et al.). The more we can see their plans and intent, the better we will be able to counter them, privately and publicly.
A position of Trump rejecting a court or SCOTUS ruling may end up being necessary, as it was for Jefferson, Lincoln, and perhaps another POTUS or two? The country did not disintegrate at those episodes as ample justification was present or available.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/trump-departmentalism-and-the-judiciary/
@ R2L > “A position of Trump rejecting a court or SCOTUS ruling may end up being necessary,”
IMO, it should also be used only as a very, very last resort.
He may be able to wait out the activists, because he has at least 6 supporters on the Supreme Court (for certain values of “support”), Kagan has joined them in one case, and even Sotomayor deserted Jackson Brown recently.
Those two quasi-leftist (neither progressing nor liberal) justices may be able to see how the Left is playing with a legal fire that could burn down the Democrats later, or even engulf the country at the level reached before Lincoln (more than Jackson) began ignoring the contrary courts.
The Left sees themselves as the resistance, fighting the Nazis. They seem to have eyes on ICE 24/7. Another violent clash today in SoCal at some type of farming operation. Things are getting spicy.
Leftists, Marxists and Democrats will still scream President Trump is acting ‘ above the Law’ if it was true or not. It’s their go to rhetoric until they think of something else.
“The man wants a blue suit. Turn on the blue light.”