Mass. judge pauses birthright citizenship order after Sup. Court ruling overriding previous injunction

Massachusetts District Judge Leo Sorokin paused President Donald Trump’s executive order halting birthright citizenship on July 25, after finding that a national injunction is the narrowest way to provide relief to state plaintiffs.

The Jan. 20 executive order ordered federal departments to not recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States, if neither of the child’s parents are United States citizens.

The ruling narrowly preempts the order’s Supreme Court-ordered implementation date of July 27. The executive order had already been preempted by a different federal injunction, which was overruled by the Supreme Court on June 27. Read Western State College of Law Professor Sandra Rierson’s article on the CASA ruling here.

“The plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of evidence that the scope of Court’s original preliminary injunction is necessary to provide them complete relief,” Sorokin’s order reads.

Federal attorneys appealed the ruling on the same day. In a July 17 reply, the federal government argued that the states failed to justify an injunction placed against

“If States could justify a universal injunction any time federal action impacts how many individuals enroll in federally funded programs in their State, then universal injunctions would be permitted whenever federal action affects the interstate movement of people,” the government wrote.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who represents California alongside seventeen other states in this lawsuit, praised the decision in a press release.

“It also reaffirms what we’ve argued from the start: Our states are harmed if those born in the United States are deprived of the right to citizenship. And it is unrealistic and infeasible to recognize the citizenship of those born in some states, but not others. We are pleased that the district court agreed. We will continue to fight to make sure this unconstitutional, anti-American executive order is blocked for good,” Bonta said.

Sorokin partially blamed the federal government for the injunction, saying that government attorneys had failed to provide evidence, dispute the states’ claims or provide narrower alternatives.

“The plaintiffs supported their legal arguments with dozens of sworn declarations from subject-matter experts and public officials describing harms the Executive Order will visit upon the plaintiffs.  The defendants, on the other hand, submitted no evidence to support the positions advanced in their own memoranda. They did not dispute (generally or specifically) the substance of the plaintiffs’ factual submissions, nor did they offer their own declarations in rebuttal,” Sorokin wrote.

Since the state’s declarations were not contested by federal attorneys, Sorokin accepted their claims that the states would face financial and administrative harms if the executive order went through. American-born children deprived of citizenship at birth would move into the plaintiff states, they argued. The states would also have difficulty in providing social services to children if they did not receive Social Security numbers. Revoking birthright citizenship in only some states would cause confusion among social service officials, they argued.

Sorokin considered and disregarded four options to provide partial relief. Allowing birthright citizenship to continue only in the plaintiff states would not fix any of the states’ stated harms, he wrote. Neither would ordering the federal government to reimburse the cost of social services to children born in, or living in, the plaintiff states. Granting Social Security numbers to American-born children throughout the nation, and directing the federal government to refund the cost of social services to children in the plaintiff state, would also cause confusion, he wrote.

“In contrast, the existing injunction is clear, simple and workable: The defendants may not enforce the Executive Order while this lawsuit proceeds. The plaintiffs have demonstrated myriad defects with any proposal narrower than the injunction originally entered,” Sorokin wrote.

Sorokin had also found that the executive order was unconstitutional.