15 states challenge Trump’s executive order cutting birthright citizenship
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s bid to cut off birthright citizenship is a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage,” attorneys for 15 states and the city of San Francisco said Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the president’s executive order signed just hours after he was sworn in Monday.
The lawsuit accused Trump of seeking eliminate a “well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle” by executive fiat.
“The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth,” the lawsuit said.
Trump’s order directed federal agencies — starting next month — to stop issuing citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented mothers or mothers in the country on temporary visas, if the father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
According to the lawsuit, about 150,000 children born each year to two parents who were noncitizens and lacked legal status could lose access to basic health care, foster care, and early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.
“They will all be deportable, and many will be stateless,” the lawsuit said.
The states warned the executive order would also cause them to lose federal funding for programs that render services to children regardless of their immigration status.
While Trump’s order purports to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, only the U.S. Supreme Court can determine how the 14th Amendment applies.
“President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. “For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: babies who are born in this country are American citizens.
The states are seeking to invalidate the executive order and stop any actions taken to implement it. Their lawsuit requests a preliminary injunction to immediately prevent the order from taking effect.
“The great promise of our nation is that everyone born here is a citizen of the United States, able to achieve the American dream,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “This fundamental right to birthright citizenship, rooted in the 14th Amendment and born from the ashes of slavery, is a cornerstone of our nation’s commitment to justice.”
On Tuesday, nonprofit groups in Massachusetts and New Hampshire also filed federal lawsuits challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio has directed the State Department to freeze applications in the passport pipeline with “X” selected as the gender identifier, according to internal communication reviewed by ABC News.
The move follows President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that the U.S. government would only recognize a person’s sex assigned at birth, limit the definition of a “male” or “female” to their reproductive cells and potentially withhold federal funding from programs that acknowledge transgender people or “gender ideology.”
The Biden administration introduced an option to select “X” instead of male or female on passport applications in 2022. The rule announced by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken marked the Transgender Day of Visibility and was designed to accommodate intersex, nonbinary and gender-nonconforming individuals.
Intersex people are those with variations in their sex traits such as genitals, chromosomes, hormones or reproductive organs, and differ from expectations of male and female anatomy.
Passports already issued with “X” gender identifiers will still be considered valid, according to the new policy.
As of Thursday, the online application tool still allows applicants to select “X” for their gender or say they wish to change their gender marker, causing confusion within the department’s passport processing operations.
Applicants who call into the State Department’s National Passport Information Center with questions are being told to wait for new guidance before applying if they can, which the center says will be made available “in the coming days.” Those with questions about existing applications are also being told to wait for the same guidance.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the executive order’s limitations on sex and gender identification. Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy and legal organization, is preparing potential legal action against the executive order so identification documents can “accurately identify” intersex and nonbinary people.
The State Department doesn’t publish data on how many applicants have selected “X” since it was introduced, but UCLA’s Williams Institute estimated at the time that 16,700 people might apply for passports with the “X” identifier each year.
The State Department declined to comment on the matter, saying it “does not comment on leaked internal documents.”
(BOSTON) — A federal judge in Boston said Monday he will continue to pause the Trump administration’s plan to offer a deferred resignation buyout to tens of thousands of federal employees until he issues a ruling on a preliminary injunction.
Three federal employee unions — with the support of 20 Democratic attorneys general — have argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s deferred resignation offer is an “unlawful ultimatum” to force the resignation of government workers under the “threat of mass termination.”
The pause, ordered by U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., came just hours ahead of the program’s midnight deadline, which itself was extended by four days following a temporary restraining order that continues to remain in effect.
During an hour-long hearing Monday, a lawyer for the Department of Justice framed the deferred resignation offer as a “humane off-ramp” for federal employees before President Donald Trump enacts sweeping changes to “rebalance and reorganize the federal workforce.”
“President Trump campaigned on a promise to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said, outlining Trump’s plan to reduce the size of the federal government and his return-to-office executive order. “We understand these announcements may have come as a disappointment for some in the federal workforce.”
Hamilton argued that any further delay of the buyout would cause irreparable harm because the Trump administration plans to enact the next steps of reshaping the federal government as soon as the buyout window closes.
Elena Goldstein, a lawyer representing the unions that brought the challenge, hammered the Trump administration for attempting to enforce an “unprecedented program” with a “slapdash exploding deadline”
“For the last two weeks, confusion has rained for millions of career civil servants,” Goldstein said. “This is a program of unprecedented magnitude that raises questions about the rationality of OPM’s decision-making.”
The buyout offer, part of Trump’s effort to trim the size of government through billionaire Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, was sent out two weeks ago in an email with the subject line “Fork in the Road” — the same language Musk used when he slashed jobs at Twitter after taking over that company in 2022.
The offer, from the Office of Personnel Management, offered full pay and benefits until September for any federal employee who accepted a deferred resignation by Feb. 6, with no obligation to work after they accepted the agreement.
While Goldstein acknowledged that Trump has the right to downsize the federal government, she emphasized that OPM has not gone through any of the steps necessary to carry out such a sweeping move — including analyzing the cost and benefits of their approach, evaluating its impact on the government’s function, and accessing potential conflicts of interest for Musk. She added that the exact terms of the buyout are “shifting” for thousands of employees who have gotten inconsistent guidance from their agency.
“OPM appears to be making this up as they are going along,” she said. “When the government wants to decide, there are ways to do this correctly … none of that happened here in the two weeks since they enacted this program.”
Arguing for the government, Hamilton criticized the plaintiffs’ argument as “legally incoherent and at odds with their theory of the case,” because a further delay of the buyout would “insert more uncertainty” into the lives of federal employees.
While the plaintiffs raised concerns that the buyout program violates federal law by using money that Congress never appropriated, Hamilton attempted to push back on the claim that the buyout changes the government’s financial obligations.
“Nothing about the voluntary resignation changes anything about the federal government’s financial obligations. It just changes what employees are expected to do and not do during their period of employment,” Hamilton said.
Goldstein argued that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent what she said was an unlawful offer to reshape the federal government while the Trump administration continues to “put additional pressure on employees.”
“This is an unprecedented action taken on an unprecedented timeline,” she said.
Just hours ahead of Thursday’s original deadline for employees to accept the offer, Judge O’Toole — who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton — temporarily blocked the offer until Monday so he could consider issuing a temporary restraining offer pausing the order.
“I enjoined the defendants from taking any action to implement the so-called ‘Fork Directive’ pending the completion of briefing and oral argument on the issues,” Judge O’Toole said in his ruling. “I believe that’s as far as I want to go today.”
The Trump administration, in response, “extended” the deadline for the offer, which more than 65,000 federal employees have already taken.
“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the Administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week.
The unions who brought the lawsuit argued that Trump exceeded his authority as president with the offer, which they described as a “slapdash resignation program.”
According to the plaintiffs, Trump’s offer violates federal law, lacks congressionally appropriated funding, and does not offer employees reassurance that the president would follow through with the offer. Their claim in part relies on a federal law from the 1940s called the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how federal agencies create and enforce rules.
“In the tech universe, ‘move fast and break things’ is a fine motto in part because they’re not playing with the public’s money, and it’s expected that most initiatives are going to fail,” Loyola Marymount law professor Justin Leavitt told ABC News. “Congress knows that, so in 1946 they basically said, ‘When agencies do stuff … they have to be careful about it. They’ve got to consider all aspects of the problem.”
The plaintiffs also argued that the buyout is unlawful because it relies on funding that Congress has yet to appropriate, violating the Antideficiency Act.
“Defendants’ ultimatum divides federal workers into two groups: (1) those who submit their resignations to OPM for a promised period of pay without the requirement to work, and (2) those who have not and are therefore subject to threat of mass termination,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers for the federal government have pushed back on those claims, arguing that Trump has the legal authority to provide the buyout for employees within the federal branch, and that any further delay would do more harm than good.
“Extending the deadline for the acceptance of deferred resignation on its very last day will markedly disrupt the expectations of the federal workforce, inject tremendous uncertainty into a program that scores of federal employees have already availed themselves of, and hinder the Administration’s efforts to reform the federal workforce,” DOJ attorney Joshua E. Gardner wrote in a filing last week.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Friday will consider blocking the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing records from the Department of Labor after a lawsuit alleged that Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team sought to illegally access highly sensitive data, including medical information, from the federal government.
Five federal unions alleged that DOGE employees are breaking the law by seeking to access sensitive records from the Department of Labor, including the “most private, sensitive employee and medical information on virtually every worker in America,” according to the suit
“Department of Labor employees have been told to unquestionably give DOGE operatives access to any system or information they request, or else face termination,” the lawsuit said, alleging that DOGE’s pattern of conduct has been “replete with violations of law.”
Musk’s private companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have been investigated and fined by parts of the Department of Labor, and at least one of his companies is being actively investigated. Musk has denied all wrongdoing.
On Wednesday, in response to a lawsuit by several federal employee unions, lawyers with the Justice Department agreed to a temporary restraining order that would largely prohibit DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data.
As DOGE has, according to the suit, “zeroed in on and sought unprecedented access to sensitive information” from other federal agencies, including the Treasury Department and Department of Education, the lawsuit raised red flags about Musk’s intrusion into the Department of Labor because of the sensitivity of their records related to the administration of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.
According to the lawsuit, Labor Department records include injury reports for thousands of employees, medical records, claim forms, and personal information gathered during the administration of FECA claims.
The department also has records of at least 86,000 workers compensation claims from 2024 alone that could be breached by DOGE, the suit said.
“The threats to the Department of Labor that give rise to this action and application for emergency relief represent yet another iteration of what is fast becoming a pattern for DOGE: exceeding its narrow mission and exercising authority it does not (and cannot) possess by exerting control over agencies through personal attacks and threats of unlawful reprisals, and harming people and the stability of our nation in the process,” the lawsuit said.
In a court filing Thursday, Justice Department attorneys representing DOGE argued that the federal unions who brought the case failed to show how they would be harmed by the sharing of data between DOGE and the Labor Department, acknowledging that multiple DOGE representatives have already been sent to work for the department.
“Plaintiffs cannot establish standing, much less irreparable harm, to challenge the sharing of unstated categories of information from unidentified records systems to unknown individuals working in the Executive Branch,” their filing said.
The lawsuit further alleged that Musk — described as an “an unappointed, unelected, and temporarily serving official” — has sought to “run roughshod” over the Labor Department at the same time it has active investigations pending into his private companies.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration — which falls under the Labor Department — previously investigated and fined Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla for multiple safety incidents, including one in connection with a SpaceX employee’s death. OSHA also has multiple open investigations into Musk’s Boring Company.
“Mr. Musk would ordinarily be unable to access nonpublic information regarding those investigations,” the lawsuit said. “In light of the blanket instruction to provide DOGE employees with ‘anything they want,’ Mr. Musk or his associates will be able to access that information simply by asking DOL employees for it.”
The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order that would prohibit the Department of Labor from sharing any records with DOGE.
