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

[T. Rustin Noone]

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.

[T. Rustin Noone]

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.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

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.

[OA5599]

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.