The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.
The ruling, issued on Tuesday, denies the government’s motion to stay the injunction, ensuring that the executive order remains unenforceable while the legal challenge proceeds.
The case involves a coalition of 18 U.S. states, including Massachusetts, as plaintiffs challenging the order against former President Donald Trump and other federal officials.
A district court had previously granted the preliminary injunction, preventing the order from taking effect until the case is fully litigated. The government sought to stay the injunction pending appeal, arguing that the order should be allowed to proceed while the legal battle continues.
However, the First Circuit found that the government failed to meet its burden of proof to justify the stay. In particular, the court ruled that the administration did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal or show that granting a stay would serve the public interest. The court noted that the government declined to make any substantive argument that the executive order is constitutional, thereby failing to make the “strong showing” required to justify a stay.
Additionally, the court put across the potential harm of “premature enforcement” of the order, particularly given the government’s failure to address how the executive order aligns with constitutional principles.
The ruling reaffirmed the public interest in maintaining birthright citizenship under established legal criteria long relied upon by government officials at all levels.
With the stay motion denied, the preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the appellate court issues a ruling on the government’s appeal. In a related case, CASA, Inc., the Asylum Advocacy Project, and five pregnant women using pseudonyms have also challenged the order in a separate lawsuit. A federal judge granted those plaintiffs a preliminary injunction as well, though a final ruling on the merits has yet to be issued.
Trump turns to Supreme Court
Meanwhile, the Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court in a series of emergency appeals Thursday to allow him to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, elevating a fringe legal theory that several lower courts have resoundingly rejected.
In a series of emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had gone too far in handing down nationwide injunctions blocking the controversial policy, and it asked the justices to limit the impact of those orders.
A federal judge in January described his executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and blocked its implementation. Days later, a judge in Maryland said that Trump’s plan “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
For more than 150 years, courts have understood the 14th Amendment’s text to guarantee citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of the immigration status of their parents. A landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898 affirmed that reading of the law, and the modern court hasn’t signaled any desire to revisit that holding.
For the latest legal news stories, visit AmericanLawReporter.Com
