Federal Judge Defies Trump Again, Blocks Order on Birthright Citizenship

A third federal judge—this time in Massachusetts—has stepped in to block President Trump’s bold executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, in yet another show of judicial resistance to common-sense immigration reform.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an Obama appointee, sided with over a dozen left-leaning states and ruled that the administration’s effort to enforce immigration law and protect American sovereignty would remain blocked nationwide. This comes despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in June to curb the sweeping use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts.

At the heart of the case is President Trump’s argument that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to children born to those unlawfully present in the United States. The administration contends that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States was never meant to apply to illegal immigrants or temporary visitors.

But Sorokin disagreed, claiming the order would place an “unworkable” burden on states and agencies and insisting that a uniform nationwide block was necessary to prevent unequal treatment across state lines. The judge took aim at the Trump administration’s legal reasoning, writing:

“They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes.”

He went on to accuse the administration of ignoring the law entirely, stating:

“The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”

Democratic officials predictably celebrated the ruling. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a staunch progressive who helped lead the legal challenge, said:

“I’m thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”

“American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded by affirming the administration’s intent to push forward, saying in a statement:

“We look forward to being vindicated on appeal.”

So far, however, no appeals have been filed in any of the three cases blocking the order. Judges in New Hampshire and San Francisco have also issued nationwide injunctions, and a Maryland judge has signaled she will do the same if permitted.

Despite the Supreme Court's recent rebuke of lower courts’ overuse of nationwide injunctions, Sorokin and his peers appear undeterred. The justices did leave some loopholes for class actions and state-backed lawsuits—which activist judges and blue state attorneys general are now exploiting to tie the hands of the Executive Branch.

While the high court has not yet ruled on the constitutional merits of the case, Sorokin was clear about his personal view:

“Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” he wrote.
“But in the meantime… the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”

The left-wing plaintiffs argue that Trump’s effort is “flagrantly unlawful,” while conveniently ignoring the costs imposed on American taxpayers who foot the bill for services to non-citizens. They warn that the order, if enforced, could reduce access to programs like foster care, Medicaid, and special education for children of illegal immigrants—programs they claim are “essential,” but which many conservatives see as part of the broader incentives fueling illegal immigration.

President Trump remains firm in his belief that birthright citizenship, as currently interpreted, is a magnet for abuse and a violation of the Constitution’s original intent. Whether the Supreme Court finally delivers clarity remains to be seen—but for now, judicial activists are holding the line against one of the most important reforms in immigration law.