BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston has announced that he will consider a request from 18 state attorneys general aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s executive order which seeks to terminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, is the third federal judge to review cases related to this executive order this week. It is unclear when Judge Sorokin will render a decision on this request, but it is not anticipated to occur today.
The coalition of state attorneys general, along with city officials from San Francisco and Washington D.C., has urged Sorokin to grant a preliminary injunction against the executive order.
“Millions of Americans born to immigrant parents, along with countless others who can trace their citizenship back to immigrant ancestors — ancestors who have contributed significantly to our nation and economy under the protections of the 14th Amendment — must be protected,” stated Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who was joined by counterparts from Connecticut and New Jersey, prior to the hearing. “The president cannot unilaterally alter the Constitution with a mere executive order.”
Earlier this week, two other federal judges issued blocks against Trump’s directive. One judge in Maryland implemented a nationwide stay, instigated by a lawsuit from immigrant rights groups and expecting mothers. Simultaneously, another judge in Seattle criticized the administration’s handling of constitutional rights, asserting that Trump’s executive order attempted to alter the Constitution itself.
In New Hampshire, another case spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union will be heard on Monday.
In the Boston case, plaintiffs assert that the concept of birthright citizenship is firmly rooted in the Constitution, claiming that Trump’s order represents a “clearly unlawful effort to deny citizenship to hundreds of thousands of American-born children based solely on their parents’ status.”
Furthermore, they argue that the executive order would jeopardize state funding crucial for delivering essential services—covering areas such as foster care, healthcare for low-income children, and early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.
