Quick summary
• A second federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling it unconstitutional and contrary to more than 250 years of legal precedent.
• The order, signed on Jan. 20, sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their parents were undocumented or held temporary legal status.
• Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland ruled that the order contradicts the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, stating, “No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”
• A previous ruling by a Reagan-appointed judge in Seattle also blocked the order, and multiple other lawsuits are pending in courts across the country.
• The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five pregnant women, one of whom, Monica, a physician from Venezuela, said she feared her child would be born stateless, adding, “I should be worried about the health of my child… instead, my husband and I are stressed, anxious, and depressed.”
• Trump’s order aligns with a broader Republican effort to challenge birthright citizenship, despite the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark affirming that all children born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of parental status.
• The case is likely to reach the Supreme Court, but legal experts predict the order will continue to face judicial defeats, as history and law remain firmly against Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
A second federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, calling it unconstitutional and contrary to more than two centuries of legal precedent. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, follows an earlier decision by a Republican-appointed judge in Seattle, both of which rejected Trump’s executive order as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
Trump’s order, signed on Jan. 20, sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their parents are undocumented or hold temporary legal status. The directive was set to take effect on Feb. 19, putting thousands of families in legal limbo and threatening to create a generation of stateless children.
Boardman’s ruling issued a nationwide injunction against the order, preventing the administration from enforcing it unless overturned by a higher court.
“The order conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth,” Boardman said in her ruling.
Trump’s order directly contradicts the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The executive order sparked immediate legal challenges, with at least nine lawsuits filed nationwide by civil rights organizations, Democratic attorneys general, and affected families.
Trump’s executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” sought to change the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The order claimed that:
• The amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally” to all children born in the U.S.
• Children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders should not be granted automatic citizenship.
• The federal government would no longer issue birth certificates or citizenship documents to children born to such parents.
If the order had gone into effect, babies born after Feb. 19 to parents without permanent residency would not be considered U.S. citizens—a move widely condemned as unconstitutional and legally baseless.
Joseph Mead, an attorney representing the families challenging the order, told the court:
“For well over a century, the 14th Amendment has been understood to guarantee citizenship to all persons born in the United States.”
Judge Boardman agreed, stating unequivocally:
“No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”
Judge Deborah Boardman’s decision issued a nationwide injunction against the order, blocking it from being enforced while litigation proceeds.
• She ruled that the executive order is likely unconstitutional, making it impermissible to enforce.
• She emphasized that the Trump administration had not proven it would suffer harm from an injunction, writing:
“The government will not be harmed by a preliminary injunction that prevents it from enforcing an executive order likely to be found unconstitutional.”
• The ruling ensures that birthright citizenship remains intact as litigation continues.
The first federal ruling against the order came from a Republican-appointed judge in Seattle, who issued an immediate temporary restraining order blocking enforcement.
• The judge expressed skepticism about the administration’s legal argument, stating he “had difficulty understanding” how the executive action could be justified under the Constitution.
• His ruling was seen as a strong bipartisan rejection of Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
These two federal decisions set the stage for further legal battles, as multiple lawsuits against the order are still pending in other states.
The lawsuit against the executive order was filed on behalf of five pregnant women, all of whom feared that their children would be born stateless if Trump’s directive went into effect.
One plaintiff, Monica, a physician from Venezuela, described the emotional toll:
“I should be worried about the health of my child. I should be thinking about that primarily, and instead my husband and I are stressed, we’re anxious and we’re depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a U.S. citizen.”
The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), one of the groups suing to block the order, warned that:
“The Executive Order has created chaos for so many families, including ASAP members, who are scared their children will not be able to live a life free of fear in the only country they will have ever known.”
Had Trump’s order been enforced, children denied U.S. citizenship at birth would:
• Be unable to obtain passports or travel freely.
• Lack Social Security numbers, making it difficult to access healthcare, education, and employment.
• Be subject to deportation threats, despite being born in the United States.
• Live in legal limbo, without clear citizenship rights in any country.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to end birthright citizenship, first raising the idea in 2016 and again in 2018.
• Legal scholars and even members of his own administration warned him that such an order would be unconstitutional.
• Despite these warnings, Trump signed the executive order on his first day in office in 2025, attempting to sidestep Congress and the courts.
Trump’s order is part of a larger Republican strategy to:
• Challenge birthright citizenship at the state level.
• Dismantle asylum protections and limit immigration pathways.
• Push for mass deportations and detention center expansions.
GOP lawmakers supporting Trump’s order argue that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause should be reinterpreted, despite over a century of legal precedent against their claims.
Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship has been swiftly rejected by federal judges, who ruled it contradicts the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. The executive order has already been blocked twice, and legal experts predict it will continue to face judicial defeats as the case moves through the courts.
Families, civil rights groups, and constitutional scholars warn that the order represents an unprecedented attack on a fundamental American right. With legal challenges mounting, the fate of Trump’s radical redefinition of citizenship will likely be decided by the Supreme Court—but history and law remain firmly against him.
Tell Congress to protect birthright citizenship, join ACLU.
COMMENTS