In a recent development, a Boston-based federal judge has put a halt to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which aimed to terminate birthright citizenship for offspring of parents residing illegally in the U.S.
This makes him the fourth judge to take such a stand against the order.
As reported by Breitbart, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin's decision arrived just three days subsequent to a similar ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire. This follows in the footsteps of comparable judgments in Seattle and Maryland. In a comprehensive 31-page ruling, Sorokin asserted that the Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the President's executive order.
The Boston lawsuit was initiated by the Democratic attorneys general of 18 states and is one among at least ten lawsuits challenging the birthright citizenship order. The attorneys general stated, President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but todays preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.
In a similar case in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour stated that the Trump administration was attempting to bypass the Constitution, with the president trying to modify it through an executive order. A federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide pause on the order in a separate but similar case involving immigrants rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children could be affected. The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would appeal that ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Boston case, the attorneys general from 18 states, along with the cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., requested Sorokin to issue a preliminary injunction. This implies that the injunction will likely remain in place while the lawsuit plays out.
The plaintiffs argue that the principle of birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution, and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they labeled a flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage. They also argue that Trumps order would cost states funding they rely on to provide essential services from foster care to health care for low-income children, to early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.
One of the most recent lawsuits was filed in the Southern District of New York, brought by the New York Immigration Coalition and a 31-year-old pregnant Venezuelan national who has a pending petition for asylum. They argue that the ban discriminates against people based on their national origin and alien status, and that it will render the womans child a stateless nomad without a home country.
The lawsuits are centered around the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasnt a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. Attorneys for the states argue that it does and that it has been recognized since the amendments adoption, notably in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship the principle of jus soli or right of the soil is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Sorokins order applies to another similar case brought in Boston as well by Lawyers for Civil Rights on behalf of expectant mothers whose children would be affected by the Presidents executive order.
Login