Less than a month after it took effect, a federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s latest birthright citizenship order, finding the policy is likely unconstitutional as applied to many children born in the United States to parents who are in the country temporarily or without proper documentation.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued the ruling on Wednesday, writing that the administration’s new approach “is almost certainly unconstitutional” for that group because the Supreme Court has already made clear that these children are citizens at birth.
Birthright citizenship order faces legal roadblock
The decision marks the newest turn in a protracted fight over birthright citizenship. Shortly after beginning his second term, Trump issued an executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and to those whose parents were in the country only temporarily.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down that policy in Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the broad scope of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
He said exceptions are narrow and historically limited to the children of foreign ministers and some 19th-century Indian tribes.
Trump signed a new order on Aug. 6 that would withhold automatic citizenship not only from the children of ambassadors but also from children of other foreign nationals working at embassies, as well as employees of international bodies including the United Nations and the World Bank.
The order also created exceptions for any child whose parent is designated an “alien enemy” under federal law, and for children whose parents “engage[d] in a commercial transaction” to ensure the mother gave birth in the United States or a U.S. territory.
Plaintiffs challenge scope and clarity
The case, CASA v. Trump, was brought by two immigrant-serving nonprofits and several of their members who have since given birth in the United States. The lawsuit originally targeted the first executive order, but the plaintiffs returned to court last month to seek a halt to the new policy as well.
They argued the order creates significant uncertainty and fear because it lacks clarity on who is covered and how it would be enforced. For example, they warned that parents could be labeled “alien enemies,” correctly or not, leading to denial of their child’s citizenship despite not falling within a recognized exception.
They also pointed to scenarios where purchasing a plane ticket to give birth in the United States could be treated as a disqualifying “commercial transaction.”
Judge Boardman found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Aug. 6 order violates the 14th Amendment. She cited recent instances of the government moving quickly, and without credible evidence, to remove people from the country based on alleged ties to groups deemed alien enemies.
She added that even a cursory review of the new order’s carveouts shows they bear little or no resemblance to the narrow exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court in Barbara.
The temporary block prevents the administration from enforcing the policy against a broad set of U.S.-born children while the case proceeds. The ruling keeps in place long-standing interpretations of citizenship that are closely watched in Hawaiʻi and nationwide, where families with mixed immigration status could be directly affected by any change.
The dispute over Trump’s executive powers follows other recent controversies, including when Trump says U.S. secured 65 billion barrels of oil, that have drawn intense legal and political scrutiny.
