A federal judge in Boston is poised to tackle President Donald Trump’s bold move to reshape birthright citizenship, stirring a legal hornet’s nest.
Newsmax reported that U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin will hold a hearing Friday at 10 a.m. ET to scrutinize a February injunction halting Trump’s executive order, which denies citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents.
Democrat attorneys general from 18 states and D.C. are pushing to keep this nationwide block intact, arguing it protects constitutional rights.
Trump’s order, issued earlier this year, directs agencies to strip citizenship from children born after February 19 if their parents lack U.S. citizenship or legal permanent residency.
The 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship for nearly all born on U.S. soil is under fire, with critics calling the order a blatant overreach.
Democrat-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, warn the policy could throw federal benefits like Medicaid into chaos by tangling eligibility rules.
A Supreme Court decision on June 27, penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, urged lower courts to rethink broad nationwide injunctions, complicating Sorokin’s task. The 6-3 ruling suggested such injunctions might be justified in class actions or for “complete relief,” but frowned on their overuse.
“One of the questions the Supreme Court left open is whether states can assert claims for citizens and if large-scale injunctions are needed,” said law professor Paul Schiff Berman.
Berman’s point fuels the states’ argument, but it’s a shaky foundation when balanced against federal authority to set immigration policy. The states, in a July 15 filing, claimed a patchwork of state-specific injunctions would sow confusion, especially for families crossing state lines.
“Families are likely to be confused if federal benefits eligibility differs by state,” the states argued, pushing for a uniform block.
The Justice Department fired back on July 8, calling Sorokin’s February injunction “clearly overbroad and inappropriate.”
It argues individuals should fight their own citizenship battles, not rely on sweeping judicial edicts that handcuff federal policy. Their logic holds water: blanket injunctions risk judges playing legislator, a role better left to elected officials.
Adding to the fray, Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued another nationwide injunction on July 10, greenlighting a class action by affected children.
Sorokin, appointed by Obama, and Laplante, a Bush pick, highlight the judiciary’s diverse lens on this divisive issue.
The states insist their July 15 brief aligns with the Supreme Court’s “complete relief” principle, doubling down on the need for a single, nationwide solution.
“This Court correctly remedied the states’ injuries via a nationwide injunction,” the states declared, tying their case to constitutional clarity. Yet, their plea ignores the practical mess of enforcing a one-size-fits-all rule across a nation with varied immigration realities.
A uniform injunction might sound tidy, but it risks trampling the nuanced balance of federal and state powers.
The 14th Amendment’s guarantee is a cornerstone, but Trump’s order tests whether executive action can redefine its reach. Democrat states paint the policy as a heartless jab at vulnerable families, yet supporters argue it’s a necessary curb on unchecked migration.
Their emotional appeal obscures a deeper question: can states dictate federal policy through judicial fiat? The states’ fear of disrupted benefits like SNAP hinges on administrative chaos, a valid concern but not a constitutional trump card.
Trump’s backers see the order as a bold stand for sovereignty, closing loopholes that incentivize illegal immigration.
The debate over “patchwork” injunctions underscores a broader tension: state-level chaos versus federal policy consistency. The White House and attorneys general stayed mum when pressed for comment, leaving the courts to wrestle with this hot potato.
