A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from putting into effect a newly signed executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday at the request of immigrant-rights advocates who previously secured an injunction from the same judge against an earlier presidential order on the same subject. That first 2025 executive order had already been the subject of litigation, and the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30 rejected that broader effort to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
The Supreme Court decision cited the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which confers citizenship on those born in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Following that ruling, the president issued a new directive on August 6 that focused on a narrower set of scenarios for denying birthright citizenship.
That August 6 order singled out so-called "birth tourism," in which pregnant visitors travel to the United States to give birth and secure automatic citizenship for their children. The order also specified that citizenship would be denied to children if one parent worked for a foreign government in the United States, if a parent had engaged in fraud or entered a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship, or if a parent were classified as an "alien enemy."
After the new order was signed, attorneys representing a class of infants who would be affected asked Boardman to block enforcement and to make sure that the citizenship status of their clients continued to be recognized. The plaintiffs include immigrant-rights organizations CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, both of which were involved in earlier litigation that led Boardman and other lower-court judges to enjoin the initial 2025 order prior to the Supreme Court's ruling.
At a hearing last Friday, Boardman did not immediately grant a block on the latest order, instead expressing skepticism about the government's position and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint so the court could more fully consider whether an injunction was warranted. In her subsequent order this week, Boardman granted the preliminary injunction requested by the advocacy groups.
Justice Department lawyers had argued against a restraining order, contending that the new directive was significantly narrower than the initial measure that prompted the earlier lawsuits. They also urged the court to consider the case premature because federal agencies had not yet issued the public guidance necessary to explain how the president's directive would be implemented. The administration said that such guidance was expected by September 5 and that any legal challenge would be more appropriately considered after agencies set out how they planned to apply the president's instructions.
Legal posture and next steps
The injunction halts implementation of the August 6 order while litigation continues, reflecting the judge's willingness to hear detailed arguments about both the scope of the president's new directive and the timing of judicial intervention given forthcoming agency guidance. The case centers on contested interpretations of the citizenship clause and on whether the narrower order nevertheless unlawfully deprives U.S.-born children of a constitutionally guaranteed status.
Context limitations
The court documents and filings reflect the positions described above; they do not, in themselves, resolve the broader constitutional questions. The administration's planned guidance by September 5 remains a scheduled step the government says may clarify how the order would operate in practice, and the litigation will proceed with the injunction temporarily blocking enforcement.