A third federal appellate court has maintained a block on former President Donald Trump’s attempt to alter birthright citizenship. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals made its decision on Tuesday, rejecting a request from Trump’s legal team to overturn a Massachusetts federal judge’s block on his executive order.
The order in question aimed to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to individuals residing in the country unlawfully and to children born to individuals with temporary legal status if the child’s father was neither a citizen nor a legal permanent resident.
Over 20 states have filed lawsuits against this measure, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Trump’s legal team, however, claims that the 14th Amendment’s provision of citizenship is only applicable to those born under U.S. jurisdiction, suggesting that jurisdiction is not synonymous with birthplace.
At least six lawsuits have challenged the order across the nation, and while the cases progress, Trump’s executive order has been blocked in all of them. Two additional lawsuits are pending decisions, and one has been paused.
The appellate court’s recent decision did not examine the legality of the lower court’s block in detail but noted that Trump’s attorneys did not demonstrate that the block should be lifted at this time.
The ruling was issued in connection with consolidated lawsuits brought by New Jersey, 19 other states, immigrant representative organizations, and a woman legally residing in the U.S. with temporary protected status.
Trump’s administration had sought to overturn the block initiated by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts, arguing that New Jersey and the other plaintiffs lacked the standing to file the suit. However, 1st Circuit Chief Judge David Barron, writing for the panel, noted that the administration did not provide a substantial argument for the legality of Trump’s action.
The government’s attorneys also failed to persuade the court that the states and other plaintiffs had no grounds to sue. Barron referenced the lower court’s determination that the states would incur irreparable harm if the order were implemented, while maintaining the block allows for the preservation of the existing conditions.
