Federal Judge Blocks New Birthright Citizenship Order in Birth Tourism Crackdown

A federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday blocked enforcement of the Trump administration's new executive order limiting birthright citizenship, delivering the latest court setback to the White House push to close loopholes in who automatically becomes an American at birth. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman granted a preliminary injunction in a case brought by two immigration advocacy groups, ruling that the August order is "almost certainly unconstitutional."

The injunction prohibits the administration from enforcing the new restrictions against any child born after February 19, 2025, to one or both parents who were not lawfully present in the country. In a 35-page opinion, Boardman wrote that the order runs headlong into the Supreme Court's June ruling that already settled the constitutional question.

"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.

A Narrower Order, A Familiar Fight

The directive at the center of the case was signed August 6 and was narrower than the sweeping executive order Trump issued on his first day back in office in January 2025. That first order sought to end birthright citizenship for broad categories of children born on U.S. soil and was quickly blocked in court before the Supreme Court struck it down this summer.

The new version focused on what the administration calls birth tourism, the practice of traveling to the United States with the primary purpose of giving birth on American soil. It also expanded the categories of children who would not receive automatic citizenship, including children born to a parent classified as an alien enemy or a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as well as children of certain foreign nationals present in the country under limited statuses.

Administration officials have defended the order as a lawful effort to preserve the meaning of American citizenship and stop foreign nationals from exploiting U.S. soil as a citizenship loophole. Supporters point out that most developed nations do not grant automatic citizenship to every child born within their borders.

The Supreme Court Already Weighed In

Boardman's ruling leans heavily on Barbara v. Trump, the June decision in which a 6-3 Supreme Court majority blocked the earlier executive order. Five justices affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, including children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted with the majority but only on statutory grounds.

The Citizenship Clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Boardman, a Biden appointee, wrote that the administration's new order tries to rewrite the boundaries of that clause after losing at the high court.

"Though the defendants may not like it, the Barbara Court's conclusion was clear," the judge wrote. "The children in the class satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause, place and jurisdiction, and they are thus citizens at birth."

Boardman had denied an emergency request from the plaintiffs just last week, but only on a technicality: the original complaint cited the 2025 order rather than the August directive. She telegraphed where she was headed at the time, saying the new order was different and unprecedented and accusing the president of trying to "rewrite the carve-outs to birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen."

Why the Administration's Defense Fell Short

The Justice Department argued the new restrictions are far narrower than the version the Supreme Court struck down, and that the lawsuit was premature because the order has not yet been implemented. Boardman found both arguments unpersuasive, writing that the government was relying on a distorted interpretation of the high court's ruling.

"Since his second term in office began on January 20, 2025, the President has tried, through Executive Order, to upend our country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship and eliminate, for large swaths of Americans, the right to citizenship by birth," Boardman wrote.

Legal observers note that a preliminary injunction is not a final judgment on the merits. The case will continue in the district court, and the government retains the option to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has already been a battleground in the broader fight over the administration's immigration and citizenship policies.

What Happens Next

Wednesday's ruling is the second time this year a court has halted the administration's birthright citizenship push, and the legal war is far from over. The plaintiffs, CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, previously secured a nationwide injunction against the original order from the same court, and they are now pressing the same arguments against the follow-up directive.

The fight is unfolding on multiple fronts. The State Department has separately proposed requiring parents to prove their own citizenship or immigration status when applying for passports for their children, a move that would give the government another mechanism to verify who qualifies as a citizen at birth.

With midterm elections roughly two months away, immigration and citizenship policy remain among the most volatile issues in American politics. The administration has made border security and immigration enforcement the centerpiece of its agenda, and it has repeatedly signaled it will keep pressing the issue through every legal avenue available. The next move belongs to the Justice Department, and the appeals court docket will determine whether the birthright citizenship order takes effect anytime soon.