Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order in Latest Legal Setback

President Donald Trump’s ongoing effort to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants has encountered yet another legal obstacle. A federal judge in Massachusetts has become the third to block the controversial executive order, siding with a coalition of states that argued the policy is unconstitutional and financially harmful.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of over a dozen states that challenged the legality of Trump’s executive order. Sorokin upheld a nationwide injunction, asserting that recent Supreme Court guidance limiting such broad rulings did not apply in this case. He argued that the nature of the challenge—brought by states and affecting millions of people nationwide—justified a far-reaching judicial response.

The states behind the lawsuit claimed that the executive order threatened to strip citizenship rights from American-born children of undocumented immigrants, putting at risk their access to essential services like healthcare, education, and social support. They also argued the order would place an enormous strain on state budgets and disrupt long-established legal precedent.

Judge Sorokin agreed with these concerns and rejected the administration’s attempt to limit the scope of the ruling. In his opinion, he criticized the federal government’s failure to present a workable or legally sound method of enforcing the executive order.

“They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable,” Sorokin wrote. “The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”

The Trump administration contends that the Fourteenth Amendment—which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase they interpret as excluding individuals in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

Critics, however, argue that this interpretation contradicts more than a century of legal precedent. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to enshrine birthright citizenship, particularly in response to the Dred Scott decision that had previously denied citizenship to enslaved African Americans. Its language, they say, clearly affirms that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The legal battle over Trump’s executive order has now seen three separate federal rulings in opposition. In addition to Judge Sorokin’s decision in Boston, a federal court in New Hampshire earlier this month also halted the policy through a class-action suit. That ruling remains in effect, as the administration has yet to file an appeal. Meanwhile, an appeals court in San Francisco upheld a lower court decision declaring the order unconstitutional.

A judge in Maryland has also indicated she would issue a nationwide block on the order, pending approval from an appellate court.

These repeated legal defeats come in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision that narrowed the conditions under which lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions. However, the high court made clear that exceptions remain, particularly in cases involving states or class-action lawsuits—conditions met in the current legal challenges.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, one of the key figures leading the opposition, hailed the Massachusetts ruling as a victory for constitutional principles and the rule of law.

“I’m thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere,” Platkin said in a statement. “American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history. The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

The White House, in response, expressed confidence in its legal position. Press Secretary Abigail Jackson issued a brief statement saying, “We look forward to being vindicated on appeal.”

As of now, however, no appeals have been filed against any of the three federal rulings blocking the order. Legal experts suggest that the ultimate fate of the birthright citizenship policy may rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet directly addressed the question of whether the executive branch has the authority to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment through unilateral action.

In his opinion, Judge Sorokin acknowledged that the constitutional debate is far from over but emphasized that, based on the current legal framework, the order is not valid.

“Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Sorokin wrote. “And no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question. But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”

Plaintiffs also raised concerns about the potential fiscal impact of the policy. They warned that denying citizenship to American-born children could jeopardize access to critical services such as foster care, Medicaid for low-income families, and educational support for children with disabilities. The ripple effect on state budgets, they argued, could be devastating.

As legal proceedings continue, the issue remains a flashpoint in the broader immigration debate, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown that could redefine what it means to be a citizen in the United States.