ANOTHER ONE: Obama Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Gateway Pundit ^ | February 13, 2025 | Cristina Laila

[Macho MAGA Man]

A fourth federal judge blocked President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

US District Judge for the District of Massachusetts Leo Sorokin, and Obama appointee, blocked Trump’s order and said in a 31-page ruling that loss of birthright citizenship, even if temporary, and later restored can likely leave ‘permanent scars.’

CBS News reported:

[A fourth federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to terminate birthright citizenship

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who sits on the federal district court in Massachusetts, said that a group of 19 states and the District of Columbia, as well as two nonprofit organizations, are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. The challengers have argued that Mr. Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office, violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“The Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the EO,” Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in a 31-page decision.]

According to President Trump’s order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the left to give citizenship to ‘anchor babies.’

“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth,” Trump’s order stated.

[Political Junkie Too]

We need the Supreme Court to put a stake in the ground regarding nonimmigrants so we can know what a constitutional amendment has to address.

-PJ

[Fuzz]

I’ll repeat the question I asked in the post you responded to.

Had Biden signed an executive order that changes the court interpretation of the second amendment, you’d be cool with that?

[nicollo]

I gotta say, this is the most cogent commentary I've seen on the current judicial assault against the American people:

The fag stooges in black robes are doing all they can to protect illegal voters for their RAT massahs.

[curious7]

They really don’t even have that as a tool because, “Separation of Powers”.

[Political Junkie Too]

I’ll repeat the question I asked in the post you responded to.

Because you don't want to respond to my argument I made regarding YOUR STATEMENT that "It literally is, per the constitution. It also isn’t the authority of the president to interpret the constitution."

I didn't address the question of birthright citizenship and the EO except elsewhere to say that it is a necessary step to get it to the Supreme Court. But I DID say that the Constitution is silent on who has the power to interpret the Constitution. What say you?

Had Biden signed an executive order that changes the court interpretation of the second amendment, you’d be cool with that?

"Cool" with it? Of course not. Recognize that it is a tactic to get it to the Supreme Court? Definitely. Expect the Court to knock it down? Absolutely.

That's like me asking you, "Are you cool with Obama issuing an executive order that declares "dreamers" to be here legally?"

Or how about "Are you cool with Biden issuing an executive order impairing the obligation of contracts regarding student loans?"

Or "Are you cool with Obama issuing an executive order putting the UAW ahead of bond holders during the bankruptcy of General Motors?"

Where do you want to stop with these "gotcha" questions?

Now, answer my question.

-PJ

[napscoordinator]

Goodness. I shutter to watch the next democratic president do an EO doing away with guns. It’s going to happen. And the howlers here will be legendary. But hypocrisy won’t be allowed to be uttered.

[Varda]

The one thing it will have to address is the elimination of Jus Soli. That will take a constitutional amendment or should.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think it should just interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" to be subject to the *sole* jurisdiction, and "the State wherein they reside" to mean the state where they are *domiciled."

"Domicile" is important because there are long-standing definitions of domicile that mean one's permanent primary residence that they have no intention of abandoning and plan to return to when away.

"Domicile of origin" is the domicile of the parents that determines the citizenship of a newborn child.

"Sole jurisdiction" means subject to no other jurisdictions while in the United States.

Citizens have domicile in the United States. Permanent resident aliens also have domicile in the United States.

Nonimmigrants do not have domicile in the United States. They swear an oath on their visa application that they have a permanent residence in their home country that they plan to return to and will only temporarily be in the United States. Having a permanent domicile in a foreign country causes the nonimmigrant to still be subject to the jurisdiction of their home country as well as being subject to our laws while here temporarily.

If SCOTUS interprets the 14th amendment in this way, we don't need a new amendment. Even if they do interpret this way, like executive orders, it will be subject to the reinterpretation of future Courts without an amendment as the final say.

-PJ

[dznutz]

Lets hope President Trump is kidding about making Canada the 51st state, otherwise he’d have some skin in the game.

[Fuzz]

‘ Because you don’t want to respond to my argument I made regarding YOUR STATEMENT that “It literally is, per the constitution. It also isn’t the authority of the president to interpret the constitution.”

I didn’t address the question of birthright citizenship and the EO except elsewhere to say that it is a necessary step to get it to the Supreme Court. But I DID say that the Constitution is silent on who has the power to interpret the Constitution. What say you?’

Why would you need the courts, up to the Supreme Court if the president can just sign an executive order?

You aren’t making sense.

‘ Where do you want to stop with these “gotcha” questions?

Now, answer my question.’

Gotchas?

They aren’t gotchas anymore than your questions.

Your questions are stupid as the process outlined in the constitution have already established the process, as you have already outlined by saying it needs to go to the supreme court.

Stop wasting everyone’s time.

[Political Junkie Too]

Stop wasting everyone’s time.

LOL!!!

Now you're speaking for EVERYONE?

-PJ

[Varda]

The 14th just doesn't say what you want it to. I do know that the ramifications of the 14th were debated by congress before it was sent to the states. So yes, the issue of illegal aliens and undesirable immigrants was brought up then.
Any decent lawyer will have those quotes from the congressional record to give to the court if needed.
Maybe the courts will rule as you wish but my guess is that there will be zero judges who don't know what “under jurisdiction” means. They aren't going to care about other jurisdictions because lets face it their own jurisdiction is the entirety of the power of the court system.

[Political Junkie Too]

The 14th just doesn't say what you want it to.

I know it doesn't, but Wong Kim Ark was interpreted by SCOTUS to say that it did. My comment was addressing the Wong ruling.

My point is that a future SCOTUS can reinterpret the Wong ruling on domicile and citizenship.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Stop wasting everyone’s time.

LOL!!!

Now you're speaking for EVERYONE?

You still won't even defend your OWN STATEMENT that judges interpreting the Constitution is "literally" in the Constitution, and that the Constitution gives no authority to the President to interpret the Constitution.

Please show me where the Constitution says that only judges can interpret the Constitution.

Speak for yourself on this one, since you're the one who made that wild claim.

-PJ

[Fuzz]

Article 3 section 1.

So why would it need to go to the Supreme Court if the president can just make the determination via executive order?

You keep avoiding that question, so answer that one, Mr make demands.

[Political Junkie Too]

Article 3 section 1.

Cite the line you say gives them sole interpretation power.

-PJ

[Fuzz]

So, you want to just demand more answers while ignoring questions?

Gfy

[Varda]

Maybe but the issue of being domiciled in the US in Wong Kim Ark was about his parents NOT being diplomates or officials of China.

[Political Junkie Too]

So why would it need to go to the Supreme Court if the president can just make the determination via executive order?

It shouldn't. It should go to Congress. But it's not the President who's forcing it to go to the Supreme Court, it's the interest groups that are running to district courts who are forcing it to go to the Supreme Court.

Has the Supreme Court defined "high crimes and misdemeanors" or has Congress done that? If Congress did it, then clearly the Supreme Court does not have sole power to interpret the Constitution.

In fact, SCOTUS has ruled in the past (Marbury v Madison) that "discretionary" powers in the other branches are political and are therefore up to those branches to work it out for themselves. If the exercise of those discretionary powers are vague and undefined in the Constitution, SCOTUS ruled that it would be improper for them to intercede in the workings of the other branches to establish who can do what, when, and how. That means that Legislative and Executive branches have to define the terms of operation for themselves.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

No, the issue in Wong was that he was born in the United States to permanent resident alien parents who had established domicile and a business. He went to China for a visit and was denied reentry into the United States when immigration agents declared that he was not a citizen.

Wong went to the Supreme Court to determine if he was a citizen or not. SCOTUS ruled that the domicile of his parents determined his citizenship, and that his citizenship was American (due to domicile of origin, in my words).

Wong did not go beyond that, so the question about nonimmigrants who have domicile in their home country (or illegal aliens who sneak into the country) is still open for interpretation.

-PJ