Federal Judge in Massachusetts Upholds Nationwide Block on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
A significant legal victory for advocates of expansive birthright citizenship occurred today as U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled to maintain a nationwide injunction. This injunction continues to block President Donald Trump's executive order, signed on his first day in office, which sought to drastically limit birthright citizenship as understood under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
President Trump's Executive Order (Executive Order 14156: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship):
Issuance: President Trump signed this executive order on January 20, 2025.
Core Objective: The order aimed to redefine birthright citizenship by instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident (green card holder).
Affected Individuals: This policy would primarily impact children born in the United States to:
Undocumented immigrant parents.
Parents with temporary legal statuses, such as tourists, students, or temporary workers.
Administration's Stance: The Trump administration argues that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment allows for a narrower interpretation of birthright citizenship, asserting it does not automatically apply to children of individuals illegally or temporarily present in the U.S. This challenges over a century of established legal precedent.
The Massachusetts Judge's Ruling:
Judge Sorokin's Decision: Judge Sorokin's ruling reaffirms a nationwide injunction he initially issued in February 2025. He explicitly stated that a nationwide injunction was essential to provide complete and effective relief to the coalition of Democratic-led states that initiated the lawsuit.
Rejection of Narrower Scope: Sorokin rejected the Trump administration's plea for a more limited injunction, which was based on a June 2025 Supreme Court decision (Trump v. CASA, Inc.) that generally restricted the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions.
Rationale for Nationwide Relief: Judge Sorokin emphasized that a "patchwork approach," where the executive order's application varied by state, would fail to protect the plaintiff states due to significant interstate movement of people. He further criticized the administration for not adequately demonstrating how a narrower injunction could be practically implemented without imposing substantial administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiff states.
Constitutional Interpretation: Sorokin reiterated his preliminary finding that the executive order is "unconstitutional" at this stage of the litigation. This aligns with the arguments of the plaintiff states and immigrant rights advocates, who contend that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause unambiguously guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
Broader Legal Context and Challenges:
Multistate Lawsuits: President Trump's executive order immediately faced numerous legal challenges, notably from a coalition of 22 Democratic attorneys general and various immigrant rights organizations, all asserting its direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Multiple Nationwide Blocks: The Massachusetts ruling marks the third judicial decision since the Supreme Court's June ruling that has blocked this birthright citizenship order nationwide.
Earlier in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire issued a similar nationwide injunction in a new class-action lawsuit.
A San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also found the executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block.
Supreme Court's Eventual Role: While the Supreme Court's June 2025 Trump v. CASA, Inc. ruling curtailed district courts' power to issue universal injunctions, it notably left open possibilities for injunctions with nationwide effects, particularly in cases initiated by states or through certified class-action lawsuits. This critical issue is widely anticipated to return to the Supreme Court for a definitive resolution, where justices will likely confront both the core constitutional question of birthright citizenship and the precise scope of lower courts' injunctive powers.
States' Financial Arguments: The states challenging the order argue that it is not only unconstitutional but would also inflict significant financial harm by jeopardizing federal funding tied to citizenship status. This funding supports crucial public services such as healthcare and education for children.
Impact:
For the foreseeable future, President Trump's directive to deny citizenship to children born to parents present in the U.S. without full legal status remains blocked. This outcome will hold unless and until the Supreme Court issues a contrary ruling. The ongoing legal battle underscores a profound and deeply rooted disagreement over a fundamental tenet of U.S. constitutional law and immigration policy.
I'm Aisha shehu
Talksocialtalka News
