Judge Blocks Trump’s New Birthright Citizenship Order, Citing Supreme Court

A federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday blocked President Trump's latest attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, issuing a preliminary injunction against an August executive order the administration said would target birth tourism and other narrow categories of births — and doing so in terms that left little ambiguity about her legal assessment. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, wrote in a 35-page opinion that the new directive was "almost certainly unconstitutional," pointing directly to the Supreme Court's June ruling that had already struck down Trump's first, more sweeping effort to limit automatic citizenship at birth.

"This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President's most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them," Boardman wrote.

The August order — Trump's second executive action on birthright citizenship in less than two years — was designed to be narrower than the January 2025 order the Supreme Court struck down. The administration argued it was targeting specific, limited categories rather than the broad population of children born to undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the August order directed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, if either parent is an "alien enemy," a "foreign government employee," or engaged in what the order called birth tourism — the practice of traveling to the United States specifically to give birth so the child obtains citizenship.

Boardman rejected the argument that the narrower framing changed the constitutional analysis. The Supreme Court's June ruling had affirmed that children in the certified class were "citizens at birth" under the 14th Amendment, and Boardman found that the August order directly conflicted with that determination. "If not enjoined as to the class, the 2026 Executive Order could deny the right to citizenship by birth to children whom the Supreme Court declared were citizens," she wrote. "No matter what the guidance says, the 2026 Executive Order commands agencies to deny citizenship documents to several broad categories of children."

The administration's attorneys had argued in court that the request to block the order was premature, contending that the federal agencies tasked with enforcement would use "appropriate measures" based on official guidance that had not yet been issued. Boardman rejected that argument as well, finding that the order itself — regardless of implementing guidance — imposed constitutional violations that warranted immediate injunctive relief.

The case was brought by CASA Inc., a Maryland-based immigrant advocacy nonprofit, and We Are CASA, its legal affiliate. The lawsuit was the same litigation that had challenged Trump's 2025 order. Initially, Boardman had declined a request to block the August order on a technicality — the original complaint had named only the 2025 order — but she had flagged at that hearing that she believed a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor was likely once the complaint was updated. "This is different," she said at the time, comparing the August order to the first. "This is unprecedented." The updated complaint was filed, and Wednesday's ruling followed.

"The White House must recognize it will not succeed in stripping children of their right to citizenship, evading binding court decisions or placing the president's anti-immigrant agenda above the Constitution," said Shana Khader, legal director at We Are CASA. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The provision was enacted primarily to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their descendants were recognized as citizens, overriding the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision. For more than a century, the federal government has interpreted the clause as guaranteeing citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents — a principle known as jus soli. That interpretation has never been directly overturned by the Supreme Court, and the Court's June 2026 ruling reaffirmed it in the context of Trump's first order.

Trump and his allies, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have long argued that the jus soli interpretation is incorrect and that the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment excludes children of undocumented immigrants and others without lawful status. Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have debated the question for decades, though the prevailing view in courts and in executive branch practice has consistently supported the broader interpretation.

Wednesday's ruling does not end the litigation. Boardman issued a preliminary injunction, which blocks enforcement while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. A final ruling on the merits will come later. A second case challenging the August order is also pending in New Hampshire federal court. The administration retains the option to appeal Boardman's preliminary injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and any appeal could ultimately return the question to the Supreme Court — which would then be asked to revisit or clarify its June ruling in light of the more targeted August order. Whether the administration pursues that route will likely depend on its assessment of whether the narrower framing of the August order creates any new legal opening the Court has not already foreclosed.

For immigrant families currently in the United States whose children were born here, Wednesday's ruling means federal agencies cannot deny citizenship documents under the August order while the litigation continues. The injunction applies to the certified class in the CASA lawsuit — which encompasses a broad category of affected families — and not merely to the named plaintiffs.

Trump has made restricting birthright citizenship one of the defining immigration goals of his second term, describing it as a magnet for illegal immigration and birth tourism. Congressional Republicans have also introduced legislation that would require one parent to be a citizen or lawful permanent resident for a child to receive automatic citizenship at birth, though that legislation has not advanced to a floor vote. The executive order strategy — which has now been blocked twice — reflects the administration's effort to achieve that goal without waiting for Congress.

Originally published on HNGN