A federal judge in Maryland has extended a block on President Trump’s executive order that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship for children of migrants without legal status. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled Wednesday that the order contradicts over two centuries of legal tradition and likely violates a key 1898 Supreme Court decision.
“The United States Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected the president’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment,” Boardman stated during a hearing in Greenbelt. “In fact, no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”
The decision is a setback for the Trump administration, which has pursued a series of aggressive immigration policies in the early weeks of the president’s term. Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status. It would have taken effect for babies born on or after February 19.
Legal Battle Over Citizenship Clause
The ruling builds on a previous injunction from a federal judge in Seattle, which temporarily halted the order. However, that decision is set to expire Thursday, with another hearing scheduled to determine its fate. Boardman’s ruling, unless overturned on appeal, will remain in place while the court considers the constitutional challenge in full—a process expected to take months.
The case before Boardman was brought by two immigrant rights organizations and five anonymous expecting mothers who lack legal status. Similar lawsuits have been filed by 22 Democratic state attorneys general, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other groups, making this one of the most high-profile legal battles of Trump’s presidency so far.
Opponents of Trump’s order argue that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only a few exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats and those born during hostile military occupation.
Joseph Mead, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the historical weight of the issue. “Generations of children have grown up with that promise,” he said.
Government Defends Executive Order
Eric Hamilton, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, argued that the Trump administration’s interpretation aligns with the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens.
“We have not taken a position that Wong Kim Ark is bad law,” Hamilton insisted. “We think it is consistent with the rule that we have laid out for the Citizenship Clause.”
But Judge Boardman dismissed that argument, asserting that a nationwide injunction was necessary to prevent potential harm. “Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a citizen upon birth. That is the law and tradition of our country,” she stated. “That law and tradition will remain the status quo pending the resolution of this case.”
Boardman, who was appointed by former President Biden, also rejected the government’s claim that halting the order would cause harm. “The government will not be harmed by a preliminary injunction that prevents it from enforcing an executive order likely to be found unconstitutional,” she said.
Nationwide Legal Showdown Ahead
This case is just the first in a wave of hearings scheduled in multiple federal courts across the country in the coming days. With at least nine lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, legal experts anticipate a lengthy and potentially historic battle that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
.jpeg)
0 Comments