Second Federal Judge Halts Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the press after signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on January 31, 2025. Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP

A federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday became the second judge in the country to halt the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship in the United States.

Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland on Feb. 5 ruled in favor of two immigrant rights organizations and five pregnant women who argued that Trump’s order would unconstitutionally deny U.S. citizenship to their future children based on their parents’ immigration status.

Boardman issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, preventing the order from taking effect as scheduled on Feb. 19.

“Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth,” Boardman said during a Feb. 5 court hearing. “That is the law and tradition of our country. That law and tradition are and will remain the status quo pending the resolution of this case.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which is representing the Trump administration in the case, declined to comment.

Boardman’s ruling grants longer-term relief to opponents of Trump’s policy, superseding a 14-day hold issued on Jan. 23 by Seattle-based Judge John Coughenour.

Coughenour previously called Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional” and is scheduled to decide Thursday on whether to extend his block with a preliminary injunction pending the case’s resolution.

Trump’s order, issued shortly after he assumed office on Jan. 20, claims that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause does not universally grant citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

In particular, it argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the citizenship clause excludes children of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from automatic U.S. citizenship.

The lawsuit in Maryland is one of a number of legal challenges, with at least eight cases filed nationwide by Democratic state officials, immigrant rights organizations, and pregnant women seeking to overturn the policy.

In the Maryland case, attorneys for migrant advocacy group CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, along with five pregnant women, argued in court filings that Trump’s order is unconstitutional, citing Supreme Court precedent, historical context, and statutory protections. They urged the court to block the order nationwide to prevent immediate and irreparable harm.

“The President has no unilateral authority to override the Supreme Court’s interpretation, amend the Constitution, or ignore a statute enacted by Congress,” the attorneys wrote.

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ assertions, attorneys for the Trump administration argued in court filings that the president’s executive order is a lawful interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

“That Executive Order recognizes that the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States as well as children of aliens whose presence is lawful but temporary,” the filing reads. “Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws.”

The defendants also claim that the plaintiffs lack standing and that their legal challenge is premature as existing legal channels under the Immigration and Nationality Act provide the proper avenue for citizenship disputes.

They also argue that the plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm and that issuing an injunction would undermine executive authority over immigration policy.

Reuters contributed to this report.