In a significant legal setback for former President Donald Trump, a federal judge has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of an executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over immigration and constitutional rights.
Background of the Controversy
Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20 upon his return to office, directed U.S. federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move was an extension of his hardline immigration policies, which have faced multiple legal challenges since his first term in office.
The order was set to take effect on February 19, sparking widespread legal battles across the country. Multiple lawsuits were filed by immigrant rights organizations, Democratic-led states, and expectant mothers, arguing that the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Deborah Boardman’s Ruling
On February 5, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of President Joe Biden, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order. The ruling came after a lawsuit was filed in Greenbelt, Maryland, by two immigrant rights groups—CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project—alongside five pregnant women who feared their children would be denied U.S. citizenship.
Boardman’s ruling reaffirmed the long-standing legal interpretation that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation,” Boardman stated. “This court will not be the first.” She further emphasized that Trump’s order conflicts with established Supreme Court precedent and contradicts over a century of legal understanding regarding citizenship by birth.
Legal Precedent and Constitutional Interpretation
Boardman referenced the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents residing in the United States. Trump’s Justice Department argued that the ruling was narrower than widely believed and did not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
However, legal scholars widely rejected this argument, emphasizing that all individuals physically present in the U.S. are subject to its jurisdiction, except for foreign diplomats. “Trump’s order conflicts with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth,” Boardman stated in her ruling.
Impact of the Injunction
The ruling has far-reaching implications. Had Trump’s order been implemented, over 150,000 newborns annually would have been denied U.S. citizenship, according to legal experts and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states. These children would have faced restrictions in obtaining Social Security numbers, government benefits, and legal work opportunities in the future.
Opponents of the order argue that it creates real-world harm, sowing fear and uncertainty among immigrant families. “This executive order is such a departure from settled law,” said Joseph Mead, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “It’s so abrupt and such a departure from what we’ve been doing for over a century.”
Responses and Future Legal Battles
The White House has not issued an immediate response to the ruling, but legal experts anticipate that the Trump administration will appeal Boardman’s decision. The Justice Department has already requested 60 days to respond, though it remains unclear whether they will pursue further litigation.
Meanwhile, immigrant rights organizations and affected individuals are celebrating the injunction as a victory for constitutional protections. Trinidad Garcia, one of the plaintiffs and an expectant mother, expressed relief over the ruling. “All I have wanted is to focus on my baby being born healthy and safe,” Garcia said. “This ruling gives mothers like me a bit of temporary relief as we navigate pregnancy and the uncertain future for our babies.”
Broader Implications for Immigration Policy
The decision adds to a growing list of legal obstacles faced by Trump’s immigration policies. The Maryland case is one of at least eight lawsuits challenging the executive order, with parallel cases in Seattle, Boston, and other federal courts across the country. A previous ruling by a federal judge in Seattle had imposed a temporary 14-day block on the order, which Boardman’s ruling has now extended indefinitely.
As the case moves through the courts, the outcome could set a precedent for future administrations’ ability to reinterpret constitutional provisions through executive action. Many legal analysts suggest that the Supreme Court may ultimately weigh in on the issue, given its significance in shaping U.S. citizenship law.
Conclusion
Judge Boardman’s ruling is a crucial moment in the fight over birthright citizenship and immigration rights in the United States. By blocking Trump’s executive order, the decision upholds over a century of legal precedent affirming that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are American citizens. As legal battles continue, the ruling serves as a reaffirmation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees and highlights the enduring debate over the scope of presidential power in shaping immigration policy.
Explore more on global policies and their impact—read about the latest U.S.-China trade tensions here.
