Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A third federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante in New Hampshire ruled against the administration, joining judges in Seattle and Maryland who issued similar rulings last week. The lawsuits, led by the ACLU and several states, argue that the order violates the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed birthright citizenship since 1868. The Trump administration is appealing the Seattle ruling while additional legal challenges continue across multiple states.
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked Again: Quick Looks
- A third federal judge in New Hampshire blocked Trump’s order, ruling against the administration’s argument.
- Judges in Seattle and Maryland issued similar rulings last week, halting enforcement of the executive order.
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and immigrant rights groups sued, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment.
- Trump’s administration contends that children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and should not be granted automatic citizenship.
- The administration has already appealed the Seattle ruling, while more lawsuits are pending in Boston and other courts.
- Legal precedent from the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark firmly establishes birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Faces Strong Legal Pushback
Federal Courts Stand Against Trump’s Executive Order
U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante of New Hampshire, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled against the Trump administration’s position, stating that he was “not persuaded” by their argument. Laplante’s decision follows similar rulings last week by U.S. District Judges John C. Coughenour in Seattle and Deborah Boardman in Maryland, both of whom halted the order’s enforcement.
While Laplante has yet to issue a full written ruling, his comments in court suggest a broad rejection of Trump’s legal reasoning.
“I’m not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments on this motion,” he said. “I think the rule of law is best served when excellent practitioners present their arguments to the court with all the experience, expertise, and knowledge they can muster.”
At the Heart of the Case: The 14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Trump administration argues that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants do not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement. However, legal precedent from the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark firmly contradicts this view. That ruling established that only children of diplomats, enemy forces, or sovereign Native American tribes were exempt from birthright citizenship.
Judges Push Back Against Trump’s Legal Argument
The legal battle over Trump’s order has led to strong rebukes from federal judges:
- Judge Coughenour (Seattle) accused Trump of ignoring the Constitution for political gain.
- Judge Boardman (Maryland) ruled that the order could immediately harm pregnant immigrants whose children would be affected.
- Judge Laplante (New Hampshire) acknowledged the administration’s legal effort but ultimately rejected their reasoning.
Despite these rulings, Trump’s administration is appealing the Seattle decision, and more legal challenges are pending.
More Legal Challenges on the Horizon
- A lawsuit filed by four states in Seattle resulted in Judge Coughenour’s ruling against Trump’s order.
- A case in Boston, involving 18 states, is still pending, with Judge Leo Sorokin (an Obama appointee) expected to rule soon.
- In total, at least nine lawsuits have been filed against the order.
The Trump administration has yet to appeal the Maryland ruling, but further legal battles are expected in the coming weeks.
Birthright Citizenship: A Global Perspective
The U.S. is one of approximately 30 countries that grant birthright citizenship, a principle known as jus soli or “right of the soil.”
- Canada and Mexico also recognize birthright citizenship, making it a common policy across North America.
- Most European countries do not grant automatic birthright citizenship, often requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.
What’s Next?
The legal battles over Trump’s executive order will likely reach the Supreme Court, though previous rulings have strongly upheld birthright citizenship.
For now, with three federal judges blocking the order, Trump’s attempt to redefine citizenship through executive action faces significant legal hurdles.
As appeals move forward and additional lawsuits unfold, the future of birthright citizenship remains a high-stakes constitutional fight.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.