The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Trump administration’s motion to stay a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, continuing to block the administration from enforcing an executive order to end birthright citizenship.

The plaintiffs constitute 18 US states, including Massachusetts, while the defendants are Trump and other government officials. The district court previously granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, which prevents the order from taking effect until the plaintiff’s claim is heard. However, the government has appealed the preliminary injunction and moved for a stay of the injunction.

In this case, the court only considered the merits of the stay motion and ultimately denied the motion. On a stay motion, the party seeking a stay has the burden to prove the circumstances of the case justify a stay. The party, in this case, the government, can meet its burden by showing it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal and that the stay would be in the public interest. On the first factor, the court found the government declined to make any argument it would be likely to succeed on its appeal demonstrating the order is constitutional. Thus, the court reasoned the government did not make a “strong showing” that would undermine the plaintiff’s position.

On the latter criteria, the court determined the lack of a “strong showing” also affects the ability of the government to show the stay is in the public interest.  The court reasoned it must also consider how “premature enforcement” of the order may affect the public interest, particularly in light of how the government does not argue how the order complies with constitutional law. Similarly, the government did not contend with how the public has a strong interest in ensuring those entitled to birthright citizenship under the “criteria on which officials at all levels of government have long relied.” Therefore, the government failed to meet this criterion.

Since the stay motion has been denied, the preliminary injunction will continue to take effect until a decision on the interlocutory appeal by the government has been made.

Another lawsuit was filed by CASA, Inc., Asylum Advocacy Project, and five pregnant mothers under pseudonyms to similarly challenge Trump’s order. A federal judge also granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the order. A final decision on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim has yet to be rendered.