A federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, delivering another major legal setback to an administration effort that has repeatedly challenged the constitutional principle that children born in the United States are generally citizens at birth.
U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, September 2, preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its August executive order against children covered by a class-action lawsuit. Boardman concluded that the new order was “almost certainly unconstitutional” as applied to those children because the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that members of the relevant class are citizens at birth.
The ruling is significant because it comes only weeks after Trump issued a new executive order designed to narrow the circumstances in which children born in the United States would automatically receive citizenship. The administration presented the new policy as a more limited approach, particularly focused on what it calls “birth tourism,” but the judge found that the revised order still conflicts with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
Judge Says Supreme Court Already Settled the Issue
At the center of the dispute is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the amendment provides the constitutional foundation for birthright citizenship in the United States. Under the long-standing interpretation of that provision, children born on U.S. soil are generally U.S. citizens, subject to limited exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats.
Trump has argued that the constitutional language should not automatically cover children whose parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. His administration first attempted to implement that position through a sweeping executive order issued in January 2025.
That earlier effort eventually reached the Supreme Court. In June 2026, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, concluding that the policy violated the Citizenship Clause. Reuters reported that the decision came in a 6-3 ruling.
Trump nevertheless returned to the issue with a new executive order in August.
Boardman concluded that the administration could not simply rewrite the policy in a narrower form after the Supreme Court had already determined the citizenship rights of the children covered by the litigation.
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Boardman wrote, concluding that the children in the certified class are citizens at birth.
The judge also emphasized that an executive order cannot override a binding Supreme Court ruling. Her decision stated that “no Presidential Executive Order can undo what the Supreme Court has done.”
What Trump’s New Order Was Designed to Do
Trump signed Executive Order 14418 on August 6, 2026. The White House described the measure as an effort to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship and specifically identified categories of children whose citizenship documents federal agencies would be instructed not to recognize.
The order focused on situations involving children whose parents are not U.S. citizens and where additional circumstances exist.
Among the categories identified were children with a parent classified as an “alien enemy,” including certain members of designated foreign terrorist organizations. The order also covered children whose parents work for foreign governments or certain international organizations.
Another major category involved what the administration described as commercial transactions intended to obtain birthright citizenship. This included arrangements in which parents allegedly paid to have the mother present in the United States to give birth or entered commercial arrangements involving a U.S.-based surrogate.
The order also addressed births in certain U.S. territories where citizenship is not automatically conferred under federal statute.
The White House said the order was based on its interpretation of the Supreme Court's June ruling rather than an attempt to ignore that decision.
Why the Administration Focused on Birth Tourism
“Birth tourism” refers to situations in which a foreign national travels to the United States to give birth with the expectation that the child will receive U.S. citizenship.
The Trump administration has made combating birth tourism an important part of its immigration agenda. Under existing immigration rules, deliberately obtaining a visa through fraud can already have immigration consequences. AP reported that birth tourism itself is not simply an automatic basis for denying citizenship under current law, while seeking a visa specifically to obtain citizenship for a child can create problems if it involves fraud or misrepresentation.
Trump's August order attempted to go further by directing federal agencies to deny citizenship documentation in specified circumstances.
That distinction became important in court because the plaintiffs argued that the order could reach families beyond the narrow circumstances the administration described publicly.
Immigrant Families Challenged the Order
The latest lawsuit was brought by immigrant families and organizations representing immigrant communities.
The plaintiffs included We Are CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. They argued that the administration's new order threatened the citizenship status of U.S.-born children and created uncertainty for parents trying to obtain passports, Social Security documentation and other proof of citizenship.
Some families expressed concern that broad language in the order could affect children even when their parents had not deliberately attempted to obtain citizenship through improper means.
AP reported that some parents feared their children could be affected merely because of circumstances involving travel, pregnancy or relatives' connections to organizations that the government could classify in ways the families disputed.
For these families, the legal dispute is therefore about more than immigration policy. It concerns whether the federal government can refuse to recognize citizenship that the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent say exists automatically at birth.
Justice Department Argued the Case Was Premature
The Justice Department defended the administration's position and argued that the lawsuit should not have moved forward yet.
Government lawyers said federal agencies had not finished issuing detailed guidance explaining how the August executive order would be implemented. Because the practical enforcement rules had not yet been finalized, the administration argued that the plaintiffs' challenge was premature.
The judge rejected that reasoning.
Boardman concluded that the executive order itself was enough to create a legal conflict because it instructed federal agencies to deny citizenship documents to broad categories of children. The absence of additional implementation guidance did not erase the obligations created by the order.
Her injunction therefore prevents federal agencies from interfering with, denying or failing to recognize the citizenship of children covered by the certified class. Reuters reported that the order specifically applies to agencies including the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration.
The Ruling Does Not End the Larger Battle
Although the judge's decision is an important victory for immigrant-rights groups, it does not necessarily end the administration's attempt to change birthright citizenship policy.
The ruling is a preliminary injunction, meaning the court has temporarily blocked enforcement while the underlying litigation continues. The broader legal dispute could therefore produce additional appeals and potentially return to higher courts.
The administration has already signaled that it intends to continue fighting.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis characterized the ruling as another decision by a judge appointed by President Joe Biden that, in the administration's view, interferes with Trump's immigration agenda. Attorney General Todd Blanche also said the administration would continue its legal effort and could return to the Supreme Court if necessary.
That sets up another potentially significant constitutional confrontation.
Why the Supreme Court’s Role Matters
The central question is no longer simply whether a president can issue an executive order on immigration.
It is whether an executive order can establish a citizenship policy that conflicts with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
That is why Boardman's ruling is particularly consequential. Rather than treating Trump's August order as an entirely new immigration policy, the judge viewed it through the framework established by the Supreme Court's June ruling.
Her reasoning was straightforward: if the Supreme Court has already determined that children in the relevant class are citizens at birth, a presidential order cannot simply instruct executive agencies to treat those same children as noncitizens.
The administration, however, argues that the August order is different from Trump's original 2025 initiative and falls within the boundaries established by the Supreme Court.
That disagreement is likely to remain at the heart of the litigation.
What Happens Next for Birthright Citizenship
For now, the preliminary injunction means the Trump administration cannot enforce the challenged provisions against the children covered by the class action.
The broader principle of birthright citizenship therefore remains in place while the case proceeds.
The immediate legal battle is likely to focus on whether Trump's revised categories genuinely fit within the Supreme Court's June interpretation of the 14th Amendment or whether they represent another attempt to accomplish indirectly what the Court has already rejected directly.
The dispute also highlights a larger constitutional question about presidential power. Immigration policy is traditionally an area in which presidents and Congress exercise substantial authority, but citizenship has a special constitutional status.
For immigrant families, the outcome could determine whether children born in the United States can continue to rely on citizenship as a status acquired at birth or whether the federal government can impose additional conditions based on their parents' immigration circumstances.
For the Trump administration, the ruling represents another obstacle to one of its longstanding immigration objectives.
And for the courts, the case tests a fundamental principle: whether an executive branch can reinterpret or narrow a constitutional right after the Supreme Court has already ruled on its meaning.
For now, Judge Boardman's answer is no.