A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on Friday that a nationwide injunction he issued in February that blocked President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship should remain in place.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston said his earlier nationwide injunction was the only way to provide complete relief to a coalition of Democratic-led states that brought the lawsuit before him, rejecting the Trump administration's argument that a narrower ruling was warranted because of a June decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sorokin wrote that the evidence before him "does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit."
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that "courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text" of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"We look forward to being vindicated on appeal," Jackson said.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, a Democrat, said in a statement that the states were thrilled with the decision.
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen."
The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called "universal" injunctions -- in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country -- and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders.
But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it across the country again.
That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy.
A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday said Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the U.S., and blocked its enforcement nationwide.
Trump signed the executive order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his crackdown on immigration.
The executive order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it was unconstitutional.
Last week, the states had argued at a hearing before Sorokin that a nationwide injunction was essential. They said restricting birthright citizenship in some states but not others would make it difficult to administer federal benefits programs like Medicaid. A patchwork approach would also lead to confusion among immigrant parents and a surge of people moving to states where Trump's executive order is on hold, straining resources, they argued. The Justice Department had countered that the states, by continuing to advocate for universal relief, had failed to come to grips with the Supreme Court's decision.
In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston said his earlier nationwide injunction was the only way to provide complete relief to a coalition of Democratic-led states that brought the lawsuit before him, rejecting the Trump administration's argument that a narrower ruling was warranted because of a June decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sorokin wrote that the evidence before him "does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit."
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that "courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text" of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"We look forward to being vindicated on appeal," Jackson said.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, a Democrat, said in a statement that the states were thrilled with the decision.
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen."
The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called "universal" injunctions -- in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country -- and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders.
But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it across the country again.
That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy.
A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday said Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the U.S., and blocked its enforcement nationwide.
Trump signed the executive order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of his crackdown on immigration.
The executive order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it was unconstitutional.
Last week, the states had argued at a hearing before Sorokin that a nationwide injunction was essential. They said restricting birthright citizenship in some states but not others would make it difficult to administer federal benefits programs like Medicaid. A patchwork approach would also lead to confusion among immigrant parents and a surge of people moving to states where Trump's executive order is on hold, straining resources, they argued. The Justice Department had countered that the states, by continuing to advocate for universal relief, had failed to come to grips with the Supreme Court's decision.
You may also like
Seven reasons DWP could stop or reduce PIP payments including missing form
Mumbai News: BMC Invites Expressions Of Interest For Second Desalination Plant At Versova Amid Delays In Manori Project
Transfer news LIVE: Gibbs-White U-turn, Isak rejects move, Man Utd star ready to leave
'Shut the f*** up' Liam Gallagher shouts at crowd as he is booed at Wembley
Fury as Home Office creates police team to monitor anti-migrant posts - 'muting Britain'
