Trump blocked again from restricting birthright citizenship by Biden judge: ‘Almost certainly unconstitutional’

WASHINGTON — A federal judge pumped the brakes on President Trump’s latest effort to rein in birthright citizenship through executive order, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling against his first attempt.

Maryland-based US District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday temporarily blocking Trump’s scaled-down executive orders last month to stop birth tourism.

“The 2026 Executive Order is almost certainly unconstitutional … for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth,” Boardman, a Biden appointee, wrote in the opinion — referring to the Supreme Court case, Trump v. Barbara, that struck down his first attempt.

Last month, Trump signed two executive orders, the first of which identified a list of children who were not eligible for automatic birthright citizenship and the second called on both the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of State to stop birth tourism — the practice of traveling to the US to have a baby on American soil.

Those executive orders came in response to the Supreme Court shutting down Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 directive to end birthright citizenship for the US-born children of birth tourists and illegal immigrants.

It appeared aimed at expanding preexisting exceptions for birthright citizenship, such as blocking the children of foreign diplomats or invaders from getting citizenship automatically.

Trump’s second order called for agencies to not recognize the citizenship of children born under specific conditions, including birth tourism.

Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

Why not direct Immigration to limit tourist visas to no more
than 90 days for women of child-bearing age and stipulate that
the holders of tourist visas cannot return to the US for 270
days after their visit? Next, women must submit to a pregnancy
test at the airport or port of exit. Those testing positive will
be denied access to the US for a period of 1 year. Finally,
women showing signs of obvious pregnancy will be denied access
to the US for a period of 1 year.

No exceptions.

I would add that women who overstay their visas for any reason
that results in a viable offspring born in the US will be deported.
The child is a US citizen (according to John Roberts). They
can stay. The mom cannot.

Could it be that “subject to the jurisdiction” actually meant sole jurisdiction?.

Sure, you could make that argument. As I said, I think there is enough wiggle room that it should have been left up to Congress, which would mirror your point about the Indians.

But you can't credibly argue that the Supreme Court simply ignored the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause as that other poster claimed. The Court very clearly pointed out the diplomatic immunity exception still applies.

The Amendment was poorly drafted, and the decision could have credibly gone either way. It didn't go the way I wanted, but unlike some other wacky decisions, there was at least a reasonable argument to be made for the way it went.

As I said, I think there is enough wiggle room that it should have been left up to Congress

Rereading your post... yeah that is exactly what you said.

In my defense, am I not supposed to get up and arms over posts on the internet after misunderstanding them through no fault of the poster? I think that's how the internet works.

lol. The internet wouldn't be the same without it!

I was almost certain Trump's own position -- that it is up to the President -- was going to fail at SCOTUS, but I was hoping that the position Kavanaugh ended up articulating would end up having a potential five votes in either concurrences or dissents. Unfortunately, it only got four potential votes -- the three dissents and then Kavanaugh's concurrence.

The Amendment is just really poorly worded. And based purely on the literal meaning of the language, the majority has a good argument. But there was no such thing as illegal aliens at the time the 14th was drafted and ratified because we didn't have any immigration laws. So it would be impossible to ascribe any kind of intent to the Amendment that addresses that particular situation.

For that reason, I thought that because immigration law itself is left up to Congress, that Congress should get the final say on whether or not birthright citizenship extends to the children of illegals.

But...we lost. It'll take a change in composition of the Court before we can get another shot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.