In a landmark decision that reverberated across the nation this week, a federal judge in Maryland issued a sweeping injunction against an executive order from the Trump administration seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without legal status or on temporary visas. The ruling, delivered late Thursday by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, marks the fourth such block since the Supreme Court’s June decision limited the reach of nationwide injunctions, but left open avenues for broad relief in class-action cases.
Judge Boardman’s decision came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by two prominent immigration organizations—CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project—alongside eight women who are either pregnant or have recently given birth. The plaintiffs argued that anything less than a nationwide halt would fail to provide adequate relief for all children affected by the order, which sought to deny citizenship to any baby born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, unless at least one parent was a citizen or permanent legal resident.
"Here, the Court finds that the only way to afford complete relief to the certified class is to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order as to each member of the class," Judge Boardman wrote in her ruling, as reported by OSV News. "That relief must include every child in the United States who is subject to the Executive Order. After all, the Executive Order does not target only children born in Maryland; it seeks to deny citizenship to ‘persons born in the United States.’ Anything less than classwide relief would not provide complete relief to the class."
The executive order in question was signed on January 20, 2025—President Trump’s first day back in office—and was part of his administration’s broader campaign to overhaul U.S. immigration policy. The order claimed that birthright citizenship was never intended as a universal right, directly challenging the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which 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." Critics, including U.S. bishops and a broad coalition of immigrant advocates, have argued that the order is a clear violation of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause.
Legal battles erupted almost immediately after the order’s signing, with lawsuits filed in multiple states. Judge Boardman’s ruling is the latest in a series of judicial setbacks for the administration’s policy. According to The Hill, every court to directly confront the constitutionality of the executive order has found it to be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision, delivered in a 6-3 vote, changed the landscape for such cases. While the Court curtailed the authority of federal judges to issue universal injunctions, it left the door open for nationwide blocks in class-action lawsuits that seek to provide "complete relief" to a certified class. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized, "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." This nuanced stance allowed Judge Boardman to certify a nationwide class of affected children and issue the broad injunction necessary to protect their rights.
Boardman was careful to clarify that her ruling did not "resurrect" the kind of universal injunctions the Supreme Court had just limited. Instead, she noted that her action "comports with old and recent Supreme Court precedent," and was necessary to ensure that no child would lose their constitutionally guaranteed citizenship under what she described as a "blatantly unlawful Executive Order."
The plaintiffs and their legal representatives welcomed the decision with a mix of relief and resolve. Liza, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, expressed her gratitude in a statement quoted by OSV News: "I am proud to be a class representative in this lawsuit, and I will continue to proudly represent other families like mine who are fighting for their children’s constitutional rights. Today’s decision affirms that U.S.-born children have a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status."
William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, echoed this sentiment, stating, "Judge Boardman’s rulings make clear that, after the Supreme Court’s decision limiting universal injunctions, a preliminary injunction protecting all members of the plaintiff class—all babies born or who will be born in the U.S. and to whom the Executive Order would otherwise apply—is necessary to ensure that no one loses their constitutionally guaranteed citizenship under this blatantly unlawful Executive Order. We look forward to continuing to protect the right to birthright citizenship that the Constitution provides."
The government’s attorneys declined to comment on the ruling, and requests for comment from the White House went unanswered as of Friday. However, immigrant advocates were quick to frame the decision as a pivotal affirmation of constitutional protections. Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, told States Newsroom, "This is a national issue that affects every single one of us in this country." She described the executive order as "just a part of the usual fear tactics to make people afraid of what they believe the federal government will do—even though it will never happen because it is blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional." Frimpong predicted that the Trump administration would likely appeal the decision, but expressed confidence that the courts would ultimately reaffirm the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship for all persons born on U.S. soil.
Judge Boardman’s order is notable not only for its immediate impact but also for its historical resonance. The practice of birthright citizenship has been recognized in the United States for well over a century, serving as a bedrock principle of American identity and legal tradition. The judge wrote that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim because the executive order "contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment." She further noted that while the immigrant families would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the government would face little harm from temporarily continuing a practice that has long been settled law.
The class-action nature of the lawsuit was crucial to the outcome. While Judge Boardman rejected a request to include parents in the class, she certified a nationwide class of children born on U.S. soil who "unquestionably would be citizens but for the Executive Order." This approach, she wrote, was the only way to ensure that relief was meaningful and that no child slipped through the cracks due to jurisdictional technicalities.
As the legal process continues, with the possibility of further appeals and yet another round before the Supreme Court, immigrant families and their advocates remain vigilant. The case has become a touchstone in the broader debate over immigration, citizenship, and the meaning of constitutional rights in the United States—issues that show no sign of fading from the national conversation.
For now, though, the message from the federal courts is clear: birthright citizenship remains firmly protected under the Constitution, and attempts to curtail it will face formidable legal obstacles.