Washington A fourth federal court on Thursday blocked the executive order of President Trump seeking to end birthright citizenship. The judge joined a growing number of courts who have stopped the president from implementing the directive, while a number of legal challenges are still ongoing.
Leo Sorokin of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said that the claims of a group of states, including 19 and the District of Columbia as well as 2 nonprofit organizations are likely to be successful. The challengers have claimed that the executive order issued by Mr. Trump on his first official day violates the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment.
In a 31-page ruling, Sorokin wrote that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to all persons, even those who fall into the categories described by the EO. He was appointed by the former president Barack Obama.
Sorokin has joined federal judges from Maryland, Washington, and New Hampshire who have issued preliminary orders blocking the Trump Administration’s enforcement of the executive order on birthright citizenship. The Justice Department appealed to the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia and San Francisco two of these decisions.
Eight lawsuits were filed against Mr. Trump in federal courts across the country. The executive order was part of a crackdown on immigration he promised during the campaign. The order denies U.S. Citizenship to children born of mothers who are either in the country illegally or temporarily with visas and whose fathers do not have legal status.
The federal judges’ decisions against the Trump administration are based on a Supreme Court ruling from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the court ruled that a Chinese immigrant born in America was a U.S. citizen under the Constitution.
Sorokin also cited that 127-year old decision in his opinion, writing that it “leaves none” for Trump’s interpretation of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause.
He said that the Supreme Court could review the case.
Sorokin wrote: “The rule, reasoning, and application of that decision was repeated and applied in subsequent decisions. It was adopted by Congress in 1940 as a federal statute law, and has been followed by the Executive Branch consistently for at least the last 100 years.”
Sorokin considered the two preliminary injunction requests brought by states, nonprofit organizations and the pregnant woman who is due to give birth in March. In court documents, the woman is identified as O. Doe. She lives in Massachusetts, and intends to give birth in the U.S. According to court documents, the woman has temporary protected status in the U.S. and that the father of the child is not an American citizen or lawful resident.
Sorokin, pointing to the nonprofits as well as the expectant mother in this case, said that “what is at stake” are “a bedrock constitutional right and its attendant privileges.” Even if the loss of birthright citizenship is temporary and then restored after the end of the litigation, it has cascading consequences that will affect the young child (and their family) for the rest of their lives.
