In a pair of sweeping rulings this week, federal judges in Maryland and Massachusetts have once again blocked former President Donald Trump’s controversial attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status. The decisions, delivered on Thursday and Friday, mark the latest chapter in a protracted legal battle that has repeatedly pitted the executive branch against the judiciary—and, ultimately, the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
On Thursday, August 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s executive order, which was originally signed on his first day in office back in January 2017. According to The Hill, Boardman’s order came after the case was remanded to her court by an appeals panel just days earlier, giving her the jurisdiction needed to act decisively. “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,” Boardman wrote in her decision. “That relief must include every child in the United States who is subject to the Executive Order.”
Boardman’s ruling is significant not only for its immediate impact—halting the enforcement of Trump’s order nationwide—but also for its legal reasoning. She emphasized that her injunction was not an attempt to “resurrect” the kind of universal injunctions the Supreme Court recently sought to limit. Instead, she argued that the nationwide scope was essential to provide “complete relief” to the class of plaintiffs, which includes every affected child across the country. This approach, she insisted, “comports with old and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
Just a day later, on Friday, August 15, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts reaffirmed a separate nationwide injunction he had issued earlier in the year. Sorokin’s ruling, as reported by Reuters and the Associated Press, covers more than a dozen states and stands as an exception to the Supreme Court’s recent decision restricting lower courts’ ability to issue broad injunctions. “Trump and the administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”
These decisions are the latest in a string of federal court actions that have halted Trump’s order since its inception. In fact, all courts that have directly confronted the order’s constitutionality have found it in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The legal consensus, at least among the lower courts, could not be clearer: the executive order does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
For those less familiar with the legal landscape, Trump’s executive order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the country if their parents lacked permanent legal status. The Trump administration argued that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States—a phrase found in the 14th Amendment—and therefore do not qualify for birthright citizenship. This interpretation, however, has been roundly rejected by multiple courts.
The plaintiffs in these cases—a coalition that includes immigration advocacy organizations CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, as well as eight women who are either pregnant or have recently given birth—have consistently argued that anything less than a nationwide injunction would be unworkable. As noted by The Hill, a patchwork of rulings applying only in select jurisdictions or to specific groups could create chaos and confusion, leaving countless families in legal limbo. The class-action nature of the lawsuits further underscores the need for uniform relief.
Adding to the complexity, the legal saga has unfolded against the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court decision that sought to rein in the use of universal injunctions by lower courts. The high court’s 6-3 ruling, split along ideological lines, limited judges’ ability to block federal policies nationwide unless absolutely necessary. However, the justices did leave the door open for such relief in cases where it is essential to provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs or when a nationwide class action is certified. Both Boardman and Sorokin leaned heavily on this exception in crafting their decisions.
The litigation has also drawn attention to the broader implications of the executive order. According to the plaintiffs, the policy not only violates the Constitution but also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for essential health insurance services that depend on citizenship status. This financial angle, highlighted in the Massachusetts case, adds yet another layer of urgency to the legal fight.
The Trump administration, for its part, has remained steadfast in its position. Officials continue to argue that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to children of parents who are in the country illegally or only temporarily. Their legal filings assert that only those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth are entitled to citizenship—a reading that, so far, has found little support in the courts.
The appellate courts have also played a pivotal role. On August 13, 2025, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s nationwide injunction against Trump’s order, further solidifying the judicial blockade. Earlier in August, a federal judge in New Hampshire issued yet another nationwide block in a new class-action suit, according to the Associated Press. All told, this marks the fourth time since the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that a federal court has blocked the executive order nationwide.
Looking ahead, the constitutional question at the heart of the dispute remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level. As Judge Sorokin noted, “no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question.” Until then, however, the lower courts’ message is unmistakable: attempts to curtail birthright citizenship by executive order are, at least for now, unconstitutional.
For families across the country, the rulings bring a measure of clarity and relief—at least in the short term. But with the Trump administration signaling its intent to pursue the matter all the way to the nation’s highest court, the ultimate fate of birthright citizenship in the United States remains uncertain. Still, for now, the courts have drawn a firm line in the sand, upholding a principle that has endured for more than a century.
