Once again, a federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide for Third Time. In a decisive blow to former President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, a federal judge in Boston has blocked an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents. This marks the third nationwide injunction against the controversial policy in less than a month, underscoring the deep constitutional and legal challenges facing the former president’s immigration strategy.
Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Nationwide for Third Time
A Major Legal Blow to Trump’s Immigration Policy
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued the ruling on Friday, declaring the order unconstitutional and preserving a nationwide injunction.
His 62-page opinion stated that the President cannot unilaterally alter constitutional protections granted under the 14th Amendment.
“The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,” Sorokin wrote, reinforcing that birthright citizenship is not a matter of executive discretion.
This is the third ruling in recent weeks to block Trump’s birthright order preceded by decisions in New Hampshire and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
A fourth ruling from Maryland is pending appellate confirmation.
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order: A Constitutional Challenge
The executive order, originally issued during Trump’s second term, sought to limit automatic U.S. citizenship only to children born to at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The Trump administration claimed the order was intended to curb birth tourism and tighten immigration loopholes.
However, constitutional scholars, immigrant rights advocates, and Democratic-led states quickly filed lawsuits, arguing that the policy was a direct attack on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
What the 14th Amendment Says
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
This amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision and has served as a cornerstone of civil rights law for over 150 years.
The Trump administration argued that children born to non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but courts have consistently rejected this interpretation.
Judge Sorokin and others reaffirmed that jurisdiction applies to all individuals born on U.S. soil, including children of undocumented immigrants and visa holders.
Legal Grounds: Why the Court Blocked the Order
Judge Sorokin’s ruling stressed that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee, and not a policy subject to executive control.
The decision upheld a nationwide injunction, asserting that a limited or region-specific block would result in legal confusion and undermine the constitutional principle of uniformity.
“A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,” Sorokin noted, referencing the high mobility of U.S. residents.
He also criticized the Department of Justice’s proposal for a narrower injunction, arguing that it lacked administrative feasibility and would create chaos in determining citizenship on a case-by-case basis.
DOJ Arguments Fall Flat
The Department of Justice (DOJ) attempted to limit the ruling, arguing that any injunction should apply only to the financial harms alleged by the plaintiff states.
But Judge Sorokin found the government’s arguments lacking in clarity, coherence, and legal basis.
“The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic,” Sorokin wrote.
The administration’s failure to provide a workable plan or address the legal questions around implementation undermined its position in court.
Broader Judicial Consensus Emerges
This ruling follows similar decisions from:
- Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire, who granted a nationwide injunction in a class-action lawsuit earlier this month.
- A panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld another block just days ago.
- A Maryland-based judge who signaled readiness to issue a similar ruling if authorized by the appellate court.
Although the Supreme Court recently ruled that lower courts should be cautious in issuing nationwide injunctions, all three judges found that exceptions apply especially for multi-state coalitions and class actions.
Financial and Social Impact on States
The lawsuit was led by a coalition of 18 Democratic-led states, including New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. They argued that Trump’s order would result in:
- The loss of federal funds tied to citizenship metrics
- Disruption of Medicaid and CHIP services for children
- Reduced access to public education, special education programs, and early childhood interventions
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who spearheaded the legal challenge, praised the decision.
“American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history,” Platkin stated. “The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”
What Comes Next? A Supreme Court Showdown Is Likely
While the Trump administration has not yet appealed any of the recent rulings, legal experts anticipate the issue will soon return to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court’s earlier decision limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions but did not decide the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order itself.
Judge Sorokin acknowledged this reality in his opinion:
“This ruling is not the final word… The Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question.”
A ruling from the high court could have far-reaching consequences, especially given the ideological makeup of the current bench.
The Stakes: Citizenship Rights at Risk
If allowed to take effect, Trump’s executive order could strip citizenship from hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States.
Legal analysts warn that this would create a stateless underclass, affecting everything from access to healthcare and education to legal protections under U.S. law.
Critics argue that such a move would set a dangerous precedent, rolling back more than 150 years of constitutional progress and undermining the legal structure of civil rights in the country.
Public and Political Reactions
The ruling received widespread praise from:
- Immigrant advocacy groups, calling it a “critical defense of democratic values.”
- Constitutional law scholars, who applauded the judiciary for checking executive overreach.
- Democratic officials, who emphasized the importance of protecting children and upholding constitutional norms.
However, conservative commentators voiced concerns about judicial activism, reigniting debates over separation of powers and the role of courts in immigration policy.
Trump Administration Responds
In a brief statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said:
“These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated on appeal.”
Despite the confident tone, the administration has yet to file formal appeals against the recent rulings, signaling internal uncertainty about the legal strategy moving forward.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for American Citizenship
The repeated blocking of Trump’s birthright citizenship order represents a pivotal moment in U.S. constitutional law. With multiple courts striking down the executive order and a Supreme Court battle looming, the debate touches the very heart of what it means to be American.
As Judge Sorokin stated:
“The Executive Order is unconstitutional. The President is entitled to pursue his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that does not make it lawful.”
For now, children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ status remain citizens, protected under the 14th Amendment and backed by a resilient judicial system that continues to uphold the nation’s founding principles.
Also Read: Zohran Mamdani Faces GOP Deportation Calls Over Anti-ICE Agenda
Also Read: US judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order nationwide via class action
