Legal Turmoil Surrounds Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

In a significant turn of events regarding President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, lower courts have effectively stalled its implementation, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that seemed to open the door for enforcement. The order, signed on January 20, 2025, titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,” sought to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or in the country temporarily. However, a series of judicial decisions have thwarted the administration’s efforts to put this policy into practice.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month sought to limit the use of nationwide injunctions, suggesting that lower courts should reconsider their broad rulings against the administration. However, rather than easing the way for Trump’s policy, judges have issued new rulings that reinforce the obstacles in its path. A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph LaPlante, blocked the executive order through a class action lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Justice Department has thus far opted not to appeal this ruling.

Adding to the administration’s woes, a federal appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction issued by a Seattle judge, which was initially put in place to protect the interests of several Democratic-led states challenging the order. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court did not overreach in providing a universal injunction, allowing the states to seek complete relief from the potential harms posed by the policy.

Moreover, Judge Leo Sorokin, who previously issued a nationwide injunction against the birthright policy, reaffirmed that the order is unconstitutional and incompatible with federal statutes. His ruling emphasized that the harms cited by state attorneys general and other plaintiffs could not be adequately addressed if the policy were allowed to take effect, even partially.

The question of whether Trump’s order could have been implemented following the Supreme Court’s 30-day pause remains uncertain. Legal experts suggest that the administration’s decision to focus on the technicalities of nationwide injunctions rather than the merits of the executive order itself may be a strategic move to challenge the authority of lower courts.

As the legal landscape evolves, further adverse rulings against the birthright citizenship order are anticipated. A federal judge in Maryland, Deborah Boardman, has indicated her readiness to block the policy again, pending a refiled class-action lawsuit by plaintiffs.

Despite the legal setbacks, the administration is reportedly working on guidance for how the birthright policy would be implemented, although specifics have yet to be disclosed. The complexities surrounding this case illustrate the ongoing legal battles that characterize Trump’s presidency and the challenges he faces in enacting his policy agenda. As it stands, every court that has scrutinized the birthright citizenship policy has deemed it unconstitutional, raising doubts about the feasibility of its future implementation.