GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest executive order limiting birthright citizenship, ruling that the policy is “almost certainly unconstitutional” because the Supreme Court has already determined that children covered by a nationwide class action are U.S. citizens at birth.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday preventing the administration from enforcing Trump’s Aug. 6 executive order against children included in the case. The order bars the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration from interfering with, denying or failing to recognize the citizenship of those children.
“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth,’” Boardman wrote in her 35-page ruling.
The decision marks another judicial setback for Trump’s effort to restrict the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for people born in the United States. It also raises new questions about how far a president can go through executive action to redefine a right rooted in the 14th Amendment.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the ruling.
Trump’s latest order had focused on what his administration calls “birth tourism,” as well as children born to certain other categories of parents, including foreign-government employees, people accused of fraud or a commercial arrangement to obtain citizenship, and people classified as “alien enemies.”
But Boardman concluded that the administration could not use a narrower order to deny citizenship to children whose status had already been addressed by the Supreme Court.
“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them,” she wrote.
The order and its targets
Trump signed the Aug. 6 executive order after the Supreme Court rejected a broader effort from his administration to limit birthright citizenship.
The new directive was framed as a more targeted policy. It took particular aim at “birth tourism,” a term used to describe women traveling to the United States to give birth so their children may receive U.S. citizenship automatically.
The order also sought to deny citizenship in cases involving children born to a parent who works for a foreign government in the United States, is accused of fraud or a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship, or is classified as an “alien enemy.”
The scope of the new order was narrower than Trump’s first executive order on the issue, signed in 2025. That initial directive sought to grant automatic citizenship at birth only when at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, commonly known as a green-card holder.
That earlier order would have excluded many U.S.-born children from automatic citizenship based on their parents’ immigration status. It faced immediate lawsuits from states, immigrant-rights organizations and families who argued that it directly conflicted with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The central constitutional question has long been how to interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Trump administration has argued that the phrase allows broader exceptions than courts have historically recognized. Opponents argue that longstanding precedent provides only limited exceptions, principally involving children of foreign diplomats, enemy forces occupying U.S. territory and certain members of sovereign tribal nations at the time the amendment was adopted.
Boardman’s ruling indicates that the court did not accept the administration’s effort to expand those exceptions through executive order.
The Supreme Court precedent
The dispute reached the Supreme Court earlier this year in a case involving Trump’s initial 2025 order.
On June 30, the Supreme Court rejected that earlier effort in a 6-3 ruling, finding that the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The decision in Barbara v. Trump established that children in the certified class action are citizens at birth, Boardman said.
That precedent became the basis for her latest injunction.
Boardman wrote that Trump’s August order was “almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth.”
The judge’s reasoning was direct: the executive branch cannot deny a constitutional status that the Supreme Court has already recognized for the same category of children.
Her ruling also rejected the idea that the administration could effectively relitigate the issue by introducing a revised executive order with narrower wording.
“No Presidential Executive Order can undo what the Supreme Court has done,” Boardman wrote, according to reporting on the decision.
The case highlights an important constitutional principle. Presidents can direct executive agencies, set enforcement priorities and issue policy orders. But executive action cannot override the Constitution or controlling judicial precedent.
The injunction’s reach
Boardman’s preliminary injunction does not resolve the lawsuit permanently. It blocks enforcement while the underlying class-action case continues.
The order protects children covered by the certified class action, which was brought on behalf of babies who could be deprived of citizenship under Trump’s initial 2025 executive order.
The injunction specifically bars federal agencies from taking action to interfere with, deny or fail to recognize the citizenship of class members. Agencies affected include:
- The Department of State, which issues passports and consular documents.
- The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration and border agencies.
- The Social Security Administration, which issues Social Security numbers and administers related federal records.
The ruling is particularly significant because citizenship affects far more than a passport. It can determine access to a Social Security number, federal benefits, voting rights later in life, the ability to obtain work authorization without immigration restrictions, and protection from removal or deportation.
Without recognition of citizenship, families could face uncertainty over some of the most basic legal aspects of a child’s life.
Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said families should not have to repeatedly return to court to defend the citizenship rights of children born in the United States.
“Immigrant families should not have to come back to court to defend the rights of their U.S.-born children and others whose citizenship is being questioned by a new executive order,” Cruz said in a statement.
The plaintiffs include the immigrant-rights organizations CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.
A dispute over timing
The Justice Department argued that the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet issued public guidance explaining how the executive order would be enforced.
Administration lawyers said the order was narrower than the 2025 directive and that any legal challenge should wait until agencies completed implementation details.
The government was expected to issue such guidance by Saturday.
Boardman rejected that argument.
She said an injunction was needed immediately because, despite the Justice Department’s assertion that the order would be applied prospectively, the language of the executive order appeared to apply to all children who meet its criteria, regardless of their date of birth.
That finding was important. It meant the court saw a present risk that existing rights could be affected before agencies formally published rules.
The administration may still issue implementation guidance. Boardman’s ruling does not prohibit agencies from preparing or publishing instructions. It prevents them from enforcing the executive order against members of the certified class.
The distinction means that the legal and administrative battle is likely to continue even while enforcement is blocked.
Proposed passport changes
The controversy has already produced signs of how the administration intended to implement the order.
Reuters reported Tuesday that the State Department drafted proposed guidance requiring parents applying for passports for their U.S.-born children to submit proof of their own citizenship or immigration status.
Under the proposal, parents or legal guardians would have to provide evidence such as a valid U.S. passport, birth certificate, I-94 immigration form or lawful permanent resident card. The government would use the documents to determine whether a child qualified for citizenship under Trump’s August executive order.
Currently, parents applying for a child’s passport generally must establish parentage and present photo identification. They may indicate on the application whether they are U.S. citizens, but they are not ordinarily required to provide documentation of their own citizenship or immigration status as part of the child’s passport application.
The proposed changes would have represented a significant shift in administrative practice.
Critics said the new process could impose extra burdens on parents, create delays in securing travel documents and raise the prospect that federal agencies would collect immigration-status information from families whose children were born in the United States.
The State Department defended the effort as an attempt to ensure that the passport process reflects the administration’s interpretation of citizenship rules.
“President Trump has been unequivocal that this Administration will protect the meaning and value of American citizenship, full stop, and that includes making sure our passport adjudication process fully reflects that standard,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.
Boardman’s injunction means agencies cannot use the executive order to deny citizenship to class members. But the fate of the proposed guidance, and its possible effects on people outside the certified class, may generate further litigation.
Why the ruling matters
Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of U.S. constitutional law since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
The amendment was adopted after the Civil War in part to overturn the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans. Its Citizenship Clause established a broad constitutional rule: people born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
The Supreme Court has historically interpreted that protection broadly. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the court recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens.
Trump’s efforts have revived a debate over whether the president can narrow that right without a constitutional amendment or an act of Congress.
Boardman’s ruling suggests that the answer, at least for children in the certified class, is no.
The case also has broader implications for executive power. Immigration policy gives presidents significant authority over border enforcement, visa rules, asylum procedures and deportation priorities. But courts have repeatedly emphasized that executive authority has limits when it conflicts with explicit constitutional guarantees.
In this case, Boardman found that the administration’s latest effort crossed that line.
What happens next
The Trump administration can appeal Boardman’s preliminary injunction to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It could also eventually seek Supreme Court review, though the high court has already ruled against the broader 2025 order.
Any appeal is likely to focus on several questions:
- Whether the August order is materially different from the 2025 order.
- Whether Boardman’s certified class covers children affected by the newer order.
- Whether the plaintiffs faced an immediate legal injury before agencies issued final implementation guidance.
- Whether the executive order can lawfully create new exceptions to birthright citizenship.
For now, the court’s injunction remains in effect.
The ruling does not end Trump’s campaign to restrict birthright citizenship. The administration may continue to pursue appeals, revise implementation plans or seek legislation. But it does mean that the president’s latest executive order cannot currently be enforced against the children protected by the class action.
Boardman’s decision is another reminder that the debate over immigration policy is also a debate over constitutional boundaries.
Trump has made restricting birthright citizenship a central priority of his immigration agenda. The courts, so far, have responded that the 14th Amendment sets a limit that executive action alone cannot cross.