BOSTON — A significant legal setback for President Donald Trump occurred on Friday when a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that his administration cannot deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
This ruling marks the fifth federal court decision since June that has either blocked or upheld decisions against the president’s controversial birthright citizenship order.
The three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their claims that the children referenced in the order are entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In upholding lower courts’ preliminary injunctions, the panel effectively put a halt to the enforcement of Trump’s birthright order while lawsuits challenging its legality continue to unfold.
The order, issued on the very first day of Trump’s presidency in January, sought to terminate the automatic granting of citizenship to babies born to individuals who are in the United States illegally or under temporary status.
The court stated, “The ‘lessons of history’ thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one’s parents rather than — in all but the rarest of circumstances — the simple fact of being born in the United States.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed his approval of the ruling, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding birthright citizenship.
“The First Circuit reaffirmed what we already knew to be true: The President’s attack on birthright citizenship flagrantly defies the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a nationwide injunction is the only reasonable way to protect against its catastrophic implications,” Bonta stated.
The ruling comes amidst a broader legal landscape wherein a second appeals court also ruled against the birthright citizenship order, siding with numerous organizations that had filed lawsuits.
The plaintiffs in that case included the New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support and the League of United Latin American Citizens, with representation from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
SangYeob Kim, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Hampshire, remarked, “The federal appeals court today reinforced that this executive order is a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution — and we agree.”
Kim added, “Our Constitution is clear: no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship.”
In a related development, the Trump administration has sought intervention from the Supreme Court to uphold its birthright citizenship order, initiating a legal process that could yield a momentous ruling from the justices by early summer regarding its constitutionality.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded critically to the appeals court’s ruling, arguing, “The court is misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated by the Supreme Court.”
In July, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston had already issued a ruling that blocked Trump’s birthright order on a nationwide scale, a decision that followed a pivotal Supreme Court ruling in June.
Following Judge Sorokin’s decision, another federal judge in Maryland also issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent the order from taking effect.
These cases are poised to return rapidly to the Supreme Court for potential resolution.
This series of legal actions follows a Supreme Court ruling from June, which stated that lower courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions, yet did not preclude other types of court orders that could have wider implications.
Subsequently, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited Trump’s executive order from being enforced nationwide, as part of a class-action suit. Furthermore, a San Francisco-based appeals court upheld another lower court’s nationwide injunction in a lawsuit that included state plaintiffs.
Central to the array of lawsuits contesting the birthright order is the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case articulated that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” insisting that Trump lacks the authority to enact an order that they argue would unjustly strip citizenship from countless children based solely on their parentage.
In defense of their position, Justice Department attorneys claimed that the phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” in the amendment implies that citizenship is not automatically granted based solely on birth location.
Historic precedent on this issue includes a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1898, which established that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was recognized as a citizen through their birth on American soil.
image source from：abcnews
