President Donald Trump’s bold move to reshape birthright citizenship has hit a judicial brick wall.
Trump’s executive order, aiming to end automatic citizenship for children of unauthorized migrants or temporary residents, remains blocked by nationwide injunctions as lawsuits pile up in federal courts across the country, as the Associated Press reports.
This saga kicked off when Trump announced his plan, arguing that children of noncitizens aren’t fully under U.S. jurisdiction and thus shouldn’t receive automatic citizenship. It’s a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for all born on American soil after the infamous Dred Scott decision denied it to an enslaved man. Conservatives might nod at Trump’s intent to tighten borders, but the legal pushback has been swift and fierce.
Court rulings stall Trump plan
Last week, U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire dropped a bombshell ruling, slapping a nationwide injunction on Trump’s order in a class-action lawsuit. He paused it briefly for an appeal, but with no move from the administration, the block went live on Friday.
The Trump team hasn’t appealed or sought emergency relief, leaving LaPlante’s order to stand unchallenged for now. They could still narrow it or fight back, but as of today, the policy is dead in the water. Turns out, even executive pens can’t outrun the gavel.
Meanwhile, in Boston, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin heard arguments from over a dozen states claiming Trump’s order violates the Constitution and risks millions in funding for vital services. Sorokin, who already issued a preliminary nationwide block, didn’t rule immediately but seemed to lean toward keeping it in place.
States push back
The states argued that alternatives floated by the administration — such as issuing Social Security numbers without citizenship — would be a bureaucratic nightmare, costing a fortune and confusing families. Some even warned it could turn certain states into magnets for benefit-seekers. Sounds like a recipe for chaos, not clarity.
Government lawyers countered, with Eric Hamilton insisting any injunction should be limited to the states’ alleged financial harms, saying, “tailored to injuries.” Tailored, sure, but isn’t the whole point of nationwide policy a nationwide impact? Piecemeal fixes rarely stitch up a gaping hole.
Judge Sorokin wasn’t buying vague promises, sharply noting to government counsel, “you have no answer.” That’s the kind of courtroom jab that stings — when a judge calls out the lack of a plan, it’s hard to argue that you have one.
Legal battles show no sign of slowing
Much of the Boston hearing zeroed in on what a narrower ruling might look like, but plaintiffs pushed back hard against half-measures. They’re not wrong to worry—new administrative systems could burden states while solving nothing.
Elsewhere, a Maryland judge signaled she’s ready to issue a similar block if an appeals court gives the green light. The legal dominoes keep falling, and Trump’s policy remains in limbo.
The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in last month, clarifying that lower courts generally can’t issue blanket nationwide injunctions, though class-action suits or state-led cases might still have broad effects. They didn’t touch the constitutionality of Trump’s order, leaving that hot potato for another day.
Constitutional questions loom large
At the heart of these lawsuits is the 14th Amendment, a bedrock of American identity that’s now under intense scrutiny. Trump’s argument — that jurisdiction doesn’t cover children of noncitizens — has sparked a firestorm over what “subject to jurisdiction” really means. It’s a debate worth having, even if the timing feels like a political lightning rod.
Cody Wofsy, an ACLU attorney, cheered the injunction, stating, “The judge’s order protects every single child.” Noble words, but let’s be real—while protecting rights sounds great, unchecked policies can also strain resources in ways progressives rarely admit. Balance, not blinders, is the name of the game.
As the Justice Department stays mum on next steps, the nation watches a policy tug-of-war unfold in courtrooms from New Hampshire to Maryland. Trump’s vision to curb birthright citizenship may resonate with those frustrated by porous borders, but the legal fortress around the 14th Amendment isn’t budging yet. For now, the status quo holds, and conservatives can only hope for a clearer path forward — without the judicial roadblocks.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
