Posted on 09/03/2026 10:31:41 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
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
Judge does not know the Constitution esp. the 14th Amendment.
“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"
Succinct summary of how Roberts changed the Constitution.
Start sending out tax bills to these birthright citizens and if refuse to pay remove their citizenship
This one might be worth going to the mat over.
Without three more originalists on the Supreme Court, who will interpret the Constitution by the intent of the authors, this ruling will stand.
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.
Must not be any illegals living in her neighborhood?.
Tea in the rose garden is so nice this time of the year.
Almost certainly......contradictory?
Thanks.
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?
BUT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT TWO CRIMINAL ILLEGALLY IN THE USA CAN BIRTH A CITIZEN
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.
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.
It should. See my post #16.
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.
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?
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.
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.