A federal judge in Massachusetts has halted the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at terminating birthright citizenship citing the 14th Amendment.
Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, along with a coalition of states, successfully argued that the executive order threatened the constitutional rights of American families, prompting U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin to intervene according to Delaware Online.
Sorokin's preliminary injunction, issued Thursday, prevents the executive order from taking effect until a trial can be conducted to further examine its legality.
The executive order in question, announced by Trump on January 20, sought to end the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the U.S., a practice backed by the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
This proposal to change long-established citizenship policy met with immediate legal challenges, spearheaded by Jennings and her colleagues from several states.
The legal team representing the states argued fervently that the executive order would deny hundreds of thousands of American children their citizenship rights. Furthermore, they claimed that the impact on affected families would be severe, diminishing their access to rights and privileges, including education and healthcare.
Delaware Attorney General Jennings emphasized the legal implications, stating, "The Court’s ruling should remind the president that we are a nation of laws as much as we are a nation of immigrants."
This sentiment encapsulates the broader concerns of those challenging the executive order, arguing for the preservation of rights entrenched since the Reconstruction era.
Judge Joseph Laplante, in a separate but related ruling earlier in the week, also sided with the plaintiffs. He found the defense's arguments unpersuasive, adding his voice to a growing judicial chorus questioning the legality of the executive order.
This injunction marks the fourth judicial block against Trump’s order. The order had previously been halted by judges in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington state. These repeated rulings reflect a pattern of judicial resistance, raising questions about the order's viability in the long term.
Defense of the executive order by the U.S. Department of Justice centered on interpretations of historical cases, including a particular Supreme Court ruling regarding Native Americans.
Drew Ensign, representing the DOJ, argued that the 14th Amendment’s original intent was not to grant automatic citizenship to children of those lacking lawful U.S. authorization.
However, Jennings counters that "Today's order protects not only American children – who deserve the same rights and opportunities as me, the president, and everyone else – but the institutions that restored this country after the Civil War." She stresses the constitutional clarity on the matter and the widespread repercussions of any reversal.
The series of legal confrontations underscores a broader effort by legal experts, immigrant advocacy groups, and courts to protect established citizenship rights granted since 1868.
The arguments presented indicate a deep commitment to ensuring that legislative actions align with historical and constitutional precedents.
Despite these legal setbacks, Trump has expressed his intention to escalate the issue to the Supreme Court. He anticipates that the highest court will potentially favor his interpretation of the citizenship provisions and allow the executive order to be enacted.
In Jennings' statement on the impact on Delaware, she reveals, "If allowed to stand, this order would have, for the first time since 1868, denied citizenship rights to as many as 700 babies born each year in Delaware." Such potential outcomes underscore the gravity of the decision-making surrounding this case.
The series of injunctions against the executive order signifies not only immediate relief for those potentially affected but also highlights the enduring legal battle over birthright citizenship.
Many observers are closely watching how future trials will unfold and what implications these will have for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.