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

NY Post ^ | 9/03/26 | Ryan King

[Libloather]

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.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Education; History
KEYWORDS: birthright; citizenship; judge; judgeblockstrump; unconstitutional

[Libloather]

Almost. Deb is not a biologist.

[SkyDancer]

Judge does not know the Constitution esp. the 14th Amendment.

[Mr. K]

The Constution says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

The Supreme Court changed it to:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

[Regulator]

Succinct summary of how Roberts changed the Constitution.

[butlerweave]

Start sending out tax bills to these birthright citizens and if refuse to pay remove their citizenship

[ComputerGuy]

This one might be worth going to the mat over.

[Wallace T.]

The Fourteenth Amendment was poorly written. Anyone who resides in the United States, foreign diplomats excepted, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The intent was clearly to protect the recently freed slaves from being treated as noncitizens by the former Confederate states. The Supreme Court in 2026 followed the precedent in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), where the Supreme Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause as granting birthright citizenship to all born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Without three more originalists on the Supreme Court, who will interpret the Constitution by the intent of the authors, this ruling will stand.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Judge does not know the Constitution esp. the 14th Amendment.

But at least in this instance, she does know how to read a Supreme Court opinion. Not her job to "correct" the Supreme Court even if she believes they got it wrong.

[Vaduz]

Must not be any illegals living in her neighborhood?.

Tea in the rose garden is so nice this time of the year.

[rktman]

Almost certainly......contradictory?

[SkyDancer]

Thanks.

[Jim Noble]

Well, obviously the EO conflicts with USSC precedent.

I wonder if an EO banning travel to the US by noncitizen females in the third trimester of pregnancy could stand?

[not in the club]

Only thing Trump could do at this point is to just ban fertile women, especially ones already pregnant.
I would think pushing for an amendment clarifying "subject to the jurisdiction" would also be something, although that would take some time. It seems like congress could also define "subject to the jurisdiction", but I doubt they would be up for the necessary fight.

[Mr. K]

BUT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT TWO CRIMINAL ILLEGALLY IN THE USA CAN BIRTH A CITIZEN

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The Supreme Court changed it to: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

No, they didn't read "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" completely out of the 14th. They expressly said that babies born to persons with diplomatic immunity and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are not entitled to citizenship.

The Amendment was badly drafted. I personally leaned towards Kavanaugh's view that it should be up to Congress, but the reading the majority gave it is consistent with the literal words of the Amendment.

[6ppc]

Pretty sure POTUS has control over who gets in and it’s not reviewable by the courts. SCOTUS ruling addressed what happens after they get in.

[6ppc]

It should. See my post #16.

[Wallace T.]

As I previously stated, the Fourteenth Amendment was poorly written. It was never intended to encompass children of immigrants, criminal or not, who were born in the United States, but to the recently freed slaves and their children, so that a state could not deprive them of citizenship status because of their former condition as slaves. If you were to apply the Thirteenth Amendment literally, the Federal government could not conduct a military draft, as that is involuntary service. However, the courts went with the original intent of that amendment and permitted drafts in the two World Wars and the Cold War era through the Vietnam War. The intent of the Thirteenth Amendment is clear: no slavery in America except as punishment for crime.

[OA5599]

Then why weren’t American Indians born outside of their reservations on US soil not granted citizenship until 1924? (Through legislature, not judicial means)

They were subject to all laws in the US (when outside their reservation), unlike those with diplomatic immunity. Could it be that “subject to the jurisdiction” actually meant sole jurisdiction?

[Tacrolimus1mg]

You’d have to ban all females. Some women don’t show much and some will overstay a visa after getting knocked up by a citizen.

Honestly, I’d be okay with that.