In a decisive moment for the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship in the United States, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction on August 7, 2025, blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-permanent resident parents. The ruling, which certified a class-action lawsuit, marks the fourth such nationwide block since the Supreme Court’s landmark June 2025 decision that limited—but did not entirely prohibit—lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.
The executive order at the heart of the case was signed by President Trump on his first day of his second term, in January 2025. The directive instructed all federal agencies to deny citizenship documents to children born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. As reported by Nexstar Media, the order specifically targeted children born to undocumented immigrants or those whose parents are in the country on temporary visas, igniting a firestorm of legal challenges and protests across the nation.
Judge Boardman’s ruling came after a protracted legal back-and-forth. The case had initially landed in her courtroom earlier in the year, and she had signaled her intent to block the order nationwide. However, jurisdictional complications ensued when the case was appealed, temporarily removing it from her docket. Last week, the appeals court returned the case to Boardman, setting the stage for Thursday’s sweeping decision. According to TNND, Boardman’s injunction is the latest in a series of court actions that have paused the order’s implementation across the country.
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that lower courts generally cannot issue universal injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, except in specific circumstances—such as when necessary to provide “complete relief” to plaintiffs or in certified nationwide class actions. This nuanced stance left the door open for Boardman’s injunction, provided she certified the affected group as a class. As she explained in her opinion, "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. That relief must include every child in the United States who is subject to the Executive Order." (Nexstar Media)
The class certified by Boardman includes all children born or to be born in the United States after February 19, 2025, who would be affected by Trump’s order. The plaintiffs—represented by immigration advocacy organizations CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, along with eight mothers who are either pregnant or have recently given birth—argued that anything less than a nationwide injunction would be unworkable and would fail to protect the constitutional rights of all affected children. Liza, a class representative mother whose last name was not made public, expressed her relief and determination: "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." (Nexstar Media)
Boardman’s opinion echoed the arguments of the plaintiffs and many legal scholars, who maintain that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to nearly every person born on U.S. soil, with extremely limited exceptions. In her written decision, Boardman stated, "The plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim because the Executive Order contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent." She further noted that the plaintiffs "will suffer irreparable harm—the denial of citizenship—without injunctive relief," and that "the government will not be harmed by an injunction that maintains the status quo of birthright citizenship." (Fox News)
The Trump administration, for its part, has argued that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship does not apply to children of parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Citing the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, the administration contends that parents without legal status do not owe allegiance to the U.S. and thus their children should not automatically receive citizenship. This interpretation, however, has been roundly rejected by lower courts. Every court to directly address the constitutionality of the executive order has found it violates the 14th Amendment. As The Washington Post and TNND have reported, legal experts overwhelmingly agree that the amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to grant citizenship to virtually everyone born within the country’s borders, regardless of their parents’ status.
The legal saga has been complicated by the Supreme Court’s June ruling, which was narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions rather than the substance of Trump’s executive order. The justices clarified that such broad relief is only permissible under certain conditions, prompting a wave of class-action filings by advocacy groups like CASA and the ACLU. As Fox News noted, Boardman’s certification of a nationwide class was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision, two other federal district judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, as well as an appellate panel, have issued similar nationwide blocks on the executive order. The courts have consistently found that piecemeal or geographically limited injunctions would be insufficient, given the mobility of people across state lines and the need for uniformity in the application of citizenship laws.
The case has drawn attention not only from legal experts but also from political figures and advocacy groups on all sides of the immigration debate. Supporters of the executive order argue that it is necessary to address what they see as abuses of the U.S. immigration system, while opponents view it as a fundamental attack on constitutional principles and the rights of children born in the United States. The Biden administration, through its judicial appointees, has signaled strong opposition to the order, emphasizing the importance of upholding longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
As the legal battle continues, the status quo remains: children born in the United States are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Judge Boardman’s ruling, in line with previous court decisions, reinforces this principle—at least for now. Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on the underlying constitutional question remains to be seen, but for thousands of families across the country, Thursday’s decision offers a measure of certainty in an otherwise uncertain landscape.
