Federal Judges Block Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
On Monday, a third federal judge ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante in New Hampshire, follows similar decisions made by judges in Seattle and Maryland. These rulings mark significant setbacks for the Trump administration’s policy, which claimed that children of noncitizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, therefore, not entitled to citizenship.
ACLU Lawsuit and Opposition to Executive Order
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Trump’s executive order, arguing that it violated the Constitution and sought to undermine core American values. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of immigrant rights groups, particularly those representing pregnant women, whose children could be directly impacted by the policy. Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, emphasized the importance of defending constitutional rights, saying that this fight would continue until the executive order is permanently overturned.
Trump Administration’s Defense and Legal Challenges
In response to the legal challenges, lawyers representing the Trump administration declined to comment on the ruling. However, the administration maintains that children born to noncitizens on U.S. soil should not be granted birthright citizenship, arguing they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. At least nine lawsuits have been filed challenging the executive order, with some states, like Washington in Seattle, leading the charge. The administration is appealing the decision made by the Seattle judge, who blocked the order last week.
Other Legal Rulings Against the Order
Last week, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle ruled against the Trump administration, stating that the president’s order attempted to sidestep the Constitution. He warned that the rule of law must not be ignored for political gain. Similarly, in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued an injunction, halting the order in another lawsuit brought by immigrant rights groups. As of now, the Trump administration has not yet appealed Boardman’s ruling. Meanwhile, in Boston, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin also heard arguments in a case filed by 18 states but has not yet issued a decision.
Constitutional Basis and Historical Context
At the heart of the legal challenges to Trump’s order is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees birthright citizenship. This amendment, ratified in 1868, was originally designed to grant citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that children born on U.S. soil, with a few exceptions, automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. These exceptions include children of diplomats, foreign enemies, or sovereign Native American tribes.
The U.S. is one of around 30 countries worldwide that practices birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” Countries in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico, follow this principle.
In his ruling, Judge Laplante praised both sides of the argument for their professional and respectful presentation in court. He made it clear that while he was not persuaded by the Trump administration’s defense, he was not offended by it either. He emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of legal practices.
These ongoing rulings underscore the continuing legal debate over birthright citizenship and the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which will likely play out in the courts for the foreseeable future.
