A fourth federal judge has blocked former President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to terminate birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, presiding in Massachusetts, ruled against the order on Thursday, reinforcing the growing number of legal decisions that have prevented its enforcement.
- The ruling was in favor of 19 states, the District of Columbia, and two nonprofit organizations challenging the executive order.
- Sorokin stated that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the order unconstitutional.
- The executive order was issued on Trump’s first day in office and sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to non-citizen parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
Sorokin’s decision aligns with rulings from federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and New Hampshire, all of whom have issued preliminary injunctions against the order. The Justice Department has already appealed two of those decisions to federal courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia.
Constitutional Protections and Legal Precedents
Judge Sorokin’s ruling reaffirmed long-standing constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The decision heavily referenced legal precedents and historical rulings that support birthright citizenship.
- The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a key reference, in which the court ruled that a man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants was a citizen by virtue of the Constitution.
- Sorokin stated that this 127-year-old ruling “leaves no room” for Trump’s restrictive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
- Congress reinforced this precedent in 1940 through federal statutory law, and the Executive Branch has upheld it consistently for the past century.
- While the Trump administration could attempt to challenge Wong Kim Ark, Sorokin pointed out that revisiting the case would fall under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey and leader of the lawsuit, welcomed the decision, stating: “President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.”
Impact on Families and Legal Challenges Ahead
The injunction also emphasized the potential harm that would result from enforcing Trump’s order. The legal battle includes multiple lawsuits and personal cases illustrating the far-reaching consequences of the policy.
- At least eight lawsuits challenging the executive order are active in courts nationwide.
- The case includes a Massachusetts-based plaintiff identified as O. Doe, a pregnant woman with temporary protected status whose baby is due in March.
- Her child’s father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, making the case directly relevant to the legal debate over birthright citizenship.
- Sorokin stressed that denying birthright citizenship, even temporarily, would have severe consequences, disrupting children’s lives and potentially causing lifelong harm.
“The loss of birthright citizenship—even if temporary and later restored at the conclusion of litigation—has cascading effects that would cut across a young child’s life (and the life of that child’s family), very likely leaving permanent scars,” Sorokin wrote in his opinion.
While legal battles continue, the injunctions issued by multiple judges signal strong judicial resistance to attempts at altering birthright citizenship via executive order. The Trump administration’s appeals and potential Supreme Court involvement could shape the future of immigration and citizenship policies in the U.S.
This is a must read: Goodbye to Politico – DOGE’s crackdown marks a new era for government-media relations
