4th federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship executive order

Table of Contents

A fourth federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump's executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship, adding to the increasing number of courts that have stopped the president from enforcing his directive while several lawsuits are pending.

A U.S. District Judge, Leo Sorokin, who sits on the federal district court in Massachusetts, stated that a group of 19 states and the District of Columbia, along with two nonprofit organizations, are likely to win their case based on the merits of their claims. The challengers have argued that President Trump's executive order, issued on his first day in office, infringes upon the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

"The Constitution grants birthright citizenship broadly, including to individuals within the categories mentioned in the Executive Order," Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in a 31-page ruling.

Two federal judges have issued temporary orders blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order on birthright citizenship. The Justice Department has appealed two of these decisions to federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia.

He has stated that he would stick to a promise he made during his campaign, which involves denying U.S. citizenship to children born to mothers who are in the country without permission or on temporary visas, while their fathers are either not U.S. citizens or don't have permission to live in the country.

The federal court decisions against the Trump administration are based on a 1898 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which stated that a person born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, in this case Chinese immigrants, is a U.S. citizen under the Constitution.

Sorokin also referenced that 127-year-old decision, stating in his opinion that it "leaves no room" for the Trump administration's interpretation of the Constitution's Citizenship Clause.

The administration can consider revisiting that case, but this would be a decision for the Supreme Court to make.

"The principles and rationale behind that decision were reaffirmed and applied in subsequent decisions, were codified into federal law by Congress in 1940, and have been consistently adhered to by the Executive Branch for at least the past century," Sorokin stated.

Sorokin was looking at the two requests for temporary stops that the states, nonprofit organizations, and a pregnant woman due to give birth in March had made. The woman, identified in court papers as O. Doe, lives in Massachusetts and plans to be in the U.S. when she gives birth. The woman is in the country on temporary protected status and the baby's father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, according to court documents.

Sorokin pointed to the nonprofits and the expectant mother, saying that "a fundamental constitutional right and all its accompanying benefits are at risk. The loss of birthright citizenship, even if temporary and later restored after the case is resolved, would have a ripple effect, impacting a young child's life and that of their family, potentially leaving lasting damage."