A federal judge has issued a ruling that prevents the Trump administration from eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to parents residing in the United States illegally.
This decision comes as the third court ruling against the birthright citizenship order since a significant Supreme Court decision in June.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin determined that the nationwide injunction, favored by more than a dozen states, remains valid under a specific exception to the Supreme Court’s ruling aimed at curtailing the authority of lower-court judges to issue such injunctions.
The states involved in the lawsuit asserted that President Trump’s birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional and poses a danger to millions of dollars in health insurance services reliant on citizenship status.
The issue is expected to advance rapidly back to the Supreme Court for a final resolution.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson expressed the administration’s anticipation of being “vindicated on appeal” in her statement following the ruling.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who played a crucial role in the lawsuit, stated he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”
He vehemently defended birthright citizenship by asserting, “American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history.”
Platkin further emphasized, “The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”
In contrast, lawyers representing the government argued that Sorokin should limit the scope of his earlier ruling known as a preliminary injunction, stating it should specifically address the states’ supposed financial injuries.
However, Judge Sorokin contended that a piecemeal application of the birthright order would not adequately protect the states because many individuals move between them.
He criticized the Trump administration for failing to clarify how a narrower injunction would operate, writing, “They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes.”
Judge Sorokin pointed out that the defendants’ stance “defies both law and logic.”
Although Sorokin’s order does not offer a conclusive resolution to the issue of birthright citizenship, he acknowledged that President Trump and his administration have the right to contest their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Supreme Court.
He noted, “No doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” but stressed that as of now, the Executive Order is unconstitutional in the context of this lawsuit.
Thus far, the administration has not appealed any of the recent court decisions blocking the birthright citizenship order.
This leaves Trump’s attempts to change citizenship rights for children born to undocumented or temporary residents disallowed until the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the matter.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire ruled against Trump’s executive order in a separate class-action lawsuit, and although U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante initially paused his decision to allow for an appeal, it is now in effect due to a lack of appeal from the Trump administration.
Additionally, a San Francisco-based appeals court recently determined that the president’s executive order is unconstitutional, thereby affirming a nationwide block from a lower court.
A judge in Maryland indicated her intention to impose a similar ruling if an appeals court concurred.
While the Supreme Court ruled last month that lower courts typically cannot issue nationwide injunctions, it did not universally reject other court orders capable of having nationwide impacts, such as those originating from class-action lawsuits or those filed by states.
The Supreme Court did not address whether the underlying citizenship order itself is constitutional.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case contended that the principle of birthright citizenship is embedded within the Constitution and argued that President Trump lacks the authority to issue such an order, labeling it a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also highlighted that Trump’s order would negatively affect state funding essential for various services such as foster care, health care for low-income children, and early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.
At the core of these lawsuits is the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, which was a response to the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to enslaved man Dred Scott despite his residence in a free state.
The Trump administration, however, claims that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus should not be granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a statement, Abigail Jackson asserted, “These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment.”
image source from：wbur
