BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday upheld a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. This ruling marks the third judicial decision to prevent the administration’s order since a significant Supreme Court ruling was issued in June.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction, supported by over a dozen states, remains intact, despite a Supreme Court limitation on lower court judges’ authority to issue such wide-ranging injunctions. The states contend that the executive order violates the Constitution and threatens crucial funding for health services linked to citizenship status.
Attorneys representing the government requested that Sorokin narrow the scope of his ruling, suggesting it should only address the financial concerns raised by the states. However, Sorokin countered that the evidence did not indicate a narrower remedy would adequately protect the plaintiffs from the anticipated harm.
While acknowledging the ongoing legal battle over birthright citizenship, Sorokin emphasized that his ruling effectively deems the executive order unconstitutional for this specific case. He noted that the administration retains the right to advance its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which may eventually lead to a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
The Trump administration has not challenged recent court decisions. Consequently, the effort to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporarily present parents remains blocked unless a contrary ruling emerges from the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling against the executive order in a separate class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante put his decision on hold briefly to allow for a potential appeal. However, as no appeal was filed, his injunction has now taken effect.
In a related development, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that the president’s order was unconstitutional, reinstating a nationwide block from a lower court. While the Supreme Court has restricted the issuance of nationwide injunctions, it did not preclude other forms of court orders that might have broad implications, particularly those associated with class-action suits and state-level cases.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case argued that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional principle and that the executive order represents an unlawful attempt to deny citizenship to numerous American-born children based solely on their parents’ immigration status. They also highlighted potential negative impacts of the order, stating that it would jeopardize essential funding for various state services, including healthcare for low-income children and interventions for students with disabilities.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.