US Judge Rejects Bid To Block Trump’s New Birthright Citizenship Order | Sahara Reporters
The ruling on Friday, according to Al Jazeera, marked one of the first legal tests of Trump’s latest attempt to limit birthright citizenship after his initial order was struck down in court.
A United States federal judge has declined, for now, to grant a temporary restraining order seeking to block President Donald Trump’s second executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
The ruling on Friday, according to Al Jazeera, marked one of the first legal tests of Trump’s latest attempt to limit birthright citizenship after his initial order was struck down in court.
US District Judge Deborah Boardman, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, declined to immediately issue the requested preliminary injunction, although she expressed concern over the new executive order.
“As far as I can tell, this is unprecedented,” Boardman said of the order.
The judge directed the plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant families and advocacy organisations, to address Trump’s August 6 executive order directly in their existing lawsuit.
She also indicated that she would schedule further briefing after the plaintiffs file a revised complaint, paving the way for the court to reconsider their request for a restraining order.
Boardman had previously been among judges who issued preliminary injunctions against Trump’s first birthright citizenship order in 2025, finding the measure unlawful.
Trump has repeatedly sought to restrict who qualifies for US citizenship at birth as part of his broader immigration policies.
His first executive order on the issue was signed on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office.
That order directed government agencies not to recognise citizenship for children born in the US where their parents were either unlawfully present or in the country lawfully but temporarily.
The policy was immediately challenged in court and became the subject of a nationwide legal battle.
On June 30, the US Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s 2025 order in a 6–3 decision, according to the report, effectively blocking the administration’s attempt to implement the measure.
Trump subsequently issued a second executive order on August 6, narrowing the categories of children whose birthright citizenship would be affected.
The new order seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born to non-citizen parents who are considered “alien enemies” or “terrorists.”
It would also target children whose parents allegedly engage in a commercial transaction to obtain birthright citizenship or arrange for an expectant mother to be in the United States to give birth.
The order additionally excludes children born in US territories where citizenship is not automatically conferred by federal statute, including ‘American Samoa’.
Trump has defended the new measure as necessary to protect the country against what he described as “malign foreign actors” seeking to exploit the United States’ citizenship laws.
His administration and allies have also argued that birthright citizenship encourages so-called “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the US to give birth so their children can acquire American citizenship.
Immigrant families and advocacy groups, including ‘We Are CASA’ and the ‘Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project’, have challenged Trump’s second order, arguing that the President does not have the authority to alter the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship through an executive order
In an August 24 memorandum seeking an injunction, lawyers for the coalition argued that the court could stop the administration from denying citizenship to affected children without requiring the plaintiffs to begin an entirely new legal action.
“It is well within the ambit of this case for the Court to enjoin Defendants from depriving class members of citizenship — no matter how many times the President, who has no power to change the law of birthright citizenship, directs them to do so,” the lawyers wrote.
The coalition maintained that determining who qualifies as a US citizen at birth is not a matter that can be decided solely by the executive branch.
“It is simply not up to the Executive Branch to decide who is a citizen by birth in the United States,” the lawyers argued.
They further contended that the central constitutional issue remained unchanged despite Trump’s issuance of a second order.
According to the lawyers, children born on US soil should have their citizenship recognised regardless of how many executive orders the President issues attempting to restrict the constitutional provision.
Birthright citizenship in the United States is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides citizenship to people born or naturalised in the country and subject to US jurisdiction.
The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the American Civil War, partly to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their descendants could not be denied citizenship.
The US Supreme Court subsequently upheld the broad application of the provision.
In the 19th-century case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court ruled that a US-born man whose parents were Chinese immigrants could not be denied citizenship on that basis.
The constitutional provision states that “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.”
There are limited exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats and certain children born to occupying military forces.
Trump has argued that children of irregular or temporary immigrants do not fall within the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Friday’s ruling does not finally determine the legality of Trump’s latest birthright citizenship order.
Instead, Judge Boardman has given the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint and directly challenge the August 6 order before the court considers their request for further injunctive relief.
The case is therefore expected to continue, with the revised petition likely to set up another major legal confrontation over the scope of presidential power and the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States.