Another Judge Blocks Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship

In the latest legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order to terminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. This marks the third time such an order has been stymied in court since a major Supreme Court decision in June.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, appointed during the Obama era, ruled in favor of more than a dozen states challenging the Trump directive. He upheld a previous nationwide injunction, despite recent Supreme Court guidance that reduces the authority of courts to block policies across the entire country. The states argued—and Sorokin agreed—that the executive order is unconstitutional and poses significant financial risks to state budgets by stripping children of citizenship and the benefits tied to it, including health care and social services.

Sorokin rejected the administration’s attempt to narrow the injunction to selected jurisdictions. He warned that allowing a fragmented implementation—where some states enforce the order and others don’t—would create chaos, since people freely move across state lines.

The judge also criticized the government’s legal arguments, finding them vague and unworkable. “They never explain how the proposal would function in real life, how agencies would carry it out without imposing substantial burdens, or how it fits with other federal laws,” Sorokin wrote. “In fact, defendants treat such questions as irrelevant to the court’s task. Their approach defies both law and logic.”

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, one of the lead challengers, applauded the decision. “I’m elated that the district court once again barred President Trump’s blatantly unconstitutional order from taking effect anywhere,” he remarked. “Children born in America have always been American. A president cannot upend that foundational rule with a signature.”

The White House responded through spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, stating that the administration “looks forward to being vindicated on appeal.” So far, no appeal has been filed in some of the rulings blocking the order.

Earlier this month, a judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction in a class-action challenge. That ruling, with no pending appeal, remains in place. Meanwhile, an appeals court in San Francisco declared the executive order unconstitutional, sustaining a lower court’s nationwide block. In Maryland, another judge has indicated willingness to issue a nationwide injunction pending appellate approval.

Though the Supreme Court recently limited the ability of lower courts to issue broad, nationwide injunctions, it left room for exceptions—for example, in class actions and state-led suits. None of the disputes over the birthright citizenship order have yet reached the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Sorokin made clear where he stands on the constitutional question: he recognizes the administration’s right to argue a different interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but he firmly rejected the executive order as unconstitutional at this stage. “Trump and his administration may pursue their reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, and ultimately the Supreme Court will resolve the matter,” he acknowledged. “But for now, given this lawsuit, the Executive Order cannot stand.”

The administration contends the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause applies only to children born to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States—a phrasing they interpret to exclude undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors. Opponents counter that the constitutional language is plain: anyone born on American soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ status.

In the Boston suit, plaintiffs argue that the president has no authority to override this guarantee via executive order. They warn the order would threaten hundreds of thousands of American-born children with citizenship revocation—and that states could lose millions in federal funding supporting child health programs, foster care, special education, and disability services.

The historical roots of the issue run deep. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 during Reconstruction to overturn the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling, which denied citizenship to Black Americans born in the United States. In framing the birthright guarantee, the amendment sought to enshrine citizenship by birth as a cornerstone of post–Civil War America.

As courts continue to push back against the Trump administration’s bid to redefine citizenship, all eyes now turn to appeals courts—and ultimately, the Supreme Court—to resolve the most sweeping constitutional confrontation over the meaning of birthright citizenship in decades.