BOSTON — In a significant legal development, a federal judge in Boston has ruled against an executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at revoking birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented immigrants. This decision marks the fourth instance where the courts have blocked the administration’s efforts on this matter.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin’s ruling, detailed in a 31-page document, emphasizes that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship broadly, including those categories specified in the executive order. This ruling follows a recent similar decision made by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire and precedes actions taken by judges in Seattle and Maryland.
The case in Boston emerged from a coalition of 18 states led by their Democratic attorneys general, as part of at least nine lawsuits lodged against the birthright citizenship directive. In their joint statement, the attorneys general assert that President Trump cannot operate outside the law, characterizing the preliminary injunction they sought as a reminder that he is not above the Constitution.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour also criticized the Trump administration’s conduct, stating that it was attempting to circumvent constitutional protections through executive action. Meanwhile, a federal judge in Maryland placed a nationwide hold on the executive order in a parallel case involving immigrant rights organizations and expectant mothers at risk of being affected.
The coalition of states, along with the cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., requested Judge Sorokin to issue a preliminary injunction, which is likely to remain as the legal proceedings continue. Their argument rests on the assertion that birthright citizenship is a constitutional principle that cannot be undermined by executive action, which they label a “flagrantly unlawful attempt” to alter the citizenship status of American-born children based on their parents’ immigration status.
Moreover, the attorneys general contend that the president’s order would have adverse financial implications for states, stripping them of essential funding required for crucial services ranging from foster care and healthcare for low-income families to early intervention programs for children with disabilities.
Central to the legal challenges is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. This amendment was established to rectify the injustices highlighted by the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which ruled that an enslaved person was not a U.S. citizen, even though he resided in a free state.
The Trump administration has contended that children of noncitizens fall outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. and thus do not qualify for citizenship. However, advocates for the states argue that the amendment has historically guaranteed such rights, referencing the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This landmark case affirmed that the only exceptions preventing automatic citizenship at birth were limited to children of diplomats and those born under specific conditions that excluded them from allegiance to the United States.
Currently, the United States is one of approximately 30 nations that uphold birthright citizenship, a principle based on jus soli or “right of the soil.” Most of these countries are located in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.
Judge Sorokin’s ruling also extends to an associated case in Boston filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights, representing expectant mothers whose families would be impacted by the executive order.
