GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge issued a second national halt on President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents residing illegally in the country. The judge emphasized that citizenship is a “most precious right.”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman stated that no judicial body has supported the administration’s reading of the 14th Amendment, affirming, “This court will not be the first.” She stressed that such a right is explicitly granted through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
In her ruling, Boardman mentioned that citizenship is a “national concern that demands a uniform policy” and indicated that a nationwide injunction is necessary to fully protect the plaintiffs involved in the case. After delivering her decision, Boardman inquired of a government lawyer whether they would appeal her ruling. The attorney indicated he did not have the authority to make that determination immediately.
Previously, Trump’s order had been temporarily blocked due to a separate lawsuit filed by four states in Washington, where a judge deemed the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The temporary hold was set to lapse, but Boardman’s preliminary injunction maintains the freeze on the executive order until the case’s merits are evaluated, barring a successful appeal from the Trump administration.
To date, 22 states and various organizations have joined in opposing the executive action. Additional hearings on birthright citizenship cases are slated for later in the week, echoing Boardman’s recent proceedings. Boardman, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, issued the injunction following a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland. The lawsuit was initiated by immigrant advocacy groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, alongside several expectant mothers.
Joseph Mead, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, highlighted that many of the affected parents have lived in the U.S. for extended periods, stating, “They’re not temporary visitors. They have made America their home.”
The essence of the lawsuits ties back to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the context of the Civil War and the landmark Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Scott, an enslaved individual. The plaintiffs contended, “The principle of birthright citizenship is a foundation of our national democracy, woven throughout the laws of our nation, and has created a sense of belonging for generations of citizens.”
In contrast, the Trump administration argues that the offspring of noncitizens do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction and thus are not entitled to citizenship. The government contended, “The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to children of those who have circumvented or defied federal immigration laws.”
The 14th Amendment was established to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves and free African Americans post-Civil War. Its text 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.”
Along with the 22 states, 18 Republican attorneys general recently indicated their intention to support the president’s order by joining a federal lawsuit in New Hampshire. The U.S. is one of around 30 nations that practice birthright citizenship, known as jus soli or “right of the soil,” which is predominantly found in the Americas, including countries such as Canada and Mexico.
During his inaugural week as president, Trump signed a series of 10 executive orders focusing on immigration, aimed at fulfilling his promises related to mass deportations and enhancing border security. While some of these measures resulted in immediate ramifications, others now confront legal objections, and potential implementation of certain orders may take years, instilling fear within immigrant populations.
The extent to which Trump can advance his agenda may hinge on budgetary considerations, as Congress prepares to address funding issues. Additionally, Trump may attempt to leverage emergency powers to access Defense Department funds, similar to actions taken for constructing a border wall during his first term.
