Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Halted by Multiple Courts \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship remains blocked as two federal judges uphold injunctions. Judge LaPlante’s nationwide ruling took effect after no appeal was filed. Another judge, Sorokin, appeared poised to extend a similar injunction amid constitutional concerns.
Quick Looks
- Judge Joseph LaPlante’s injunction has now taken nationwide effect.
- The Trump administration did not appeal the ruling.
- ACLU calls the order unconstitutional and harmful to children’s rights.
- Judge Leo Sorokin hears states’ arguments to keep his block in place.
- Government proposes narrowing the ruling but offers no viable implementation plan.
- Judges focus on 14th Amendment protections for all U.S.-born children.
- The Justice Department remains silent, with potential appeals still possible.
Deep Look
President Donald Trump’s renewed attempt to terminate birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary residents has hit a significant legal blockade, as two federal judges have either activated or are leaning toward nationwide injunctions halting the policy’s enforcement. This latest move reignites a constitutional battle that centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the role of the judiciary in curbing executive overreach.
U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante, presiding in New Hampshire, had previously issued a nationwide injunction but stayed the order to give the Trump administration time to file an appeal. However, with the administration opting not to appeal within the allowed timeframe, LaPlante’s injunction automatically went into effect on Friday. This blocks President Trump’s executive order from being enforced across the United States.
ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, representing the children affected by Trump’s controversial order, praised the ruling. “The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Wofsy stated. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief, so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”
While the administration retains the option to file an appeal or request the injunction be narrowed in scope, no such action has yet been taken. The Department of Justice has remained silent on the issue, offering no public comment. However, legal experts say the administration is likely weighing its chances at the appellate level or the Supreme Court before making its next move.
Simultaneously, in Boston, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin is reviewing a parallel case brought by more than a dozen states challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s order. The states argue that ending birthright citizenship is not only unlawful but could devastate their budgets by eliminating federal benefits linked to population counts, such as education and healthcare funding.
Sorokin had already granted a preliminary injunction to stop the policy’s rollout and was asked during a hearing to either maintain the block or consider the administration’s proposal to narrow its reach. Government attorneys urged the judge to tailor the injunction only to the specific financial harms the states are claiming. But Sorokin appeared skeptical and demanded clarity on how such a narrower order could be realistically implemented.
One alternative floated by Trump’s legal team involved issuing Social Security numbers to affected children but withholding official citizenship status. However, states argued this half-measure would impose excessive administrative costs, create bureaucratic confusion, and turn participating states into magnets for families from non-participating states.
“You’re telling me you will do it,” Judge Sorokin said during the proceedings, “but you have no answer how you will do it.” He likened the proposal to a neighbor sued for noise pollution who offers to build a wall—without knowing whether it complies with zoning codes or is financially feasible.
LaPlante’s ruling came as part of a class-action lawsuit, reinforcing the notion that such legal mechanisms still allow nationwide orders even after a recent Supreme Court decision suggested limiting the scope of lower court injunctions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order. Instead, it has only clarified the procedural authority of lower courts to issue broad-reaching injunctions in certain contexts, such as class actions and multi-state suits.
At the heart of this legal battle is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Amendment guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This clause has long been interpreted to provide citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
President Trump’s administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. This legal theory flies in the face of more than a century of judicial precedent, including the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship for a child born to noncitizen parents.
Civil rights groups, legal scholars, and bipartisan coalitions of state attorneys general argue that Trump’s order is not only unconstitutional but part of a broader attempt to erode immigrant rights and shift longstanding interpretations of constitutional protections. They warn that undermining birthright citizenship could create a permanent underclass of stateless individuals, born in the U.S. yet denied full legal status.
While President Trump continues to frame the move as a crackdown on so-called “anchor babies” and what he describes as abuses of U.S. citizenship laws, opposition is growing. Critics argue the move is legally untenable and morally fraught, with implications that extend beyond immigration to core definitions of American identity and constitutional loyalty.
As both legal challenges continue through the federal courts, the likelihood of a Supreme Court review grows stronger. If the high court ultimately weighs in, it will be tasked with addressing one of the most profound constitutional questions of the modern era: Who gets to be an American by birth?
For now, the answer remains: anyone born on American soil, as guaranteed by the Constitution—at least until the highest court in the land says otherwise.
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship
You must Register or Login to post a comment.