DEALSSBR declares USD 0.33168 monthly cash dividend, ex-date September 15Sep 5DEALSASO declares $0.15 quarterly cash dividend, payment set for October 14Sep 5EARNINGSKNOT Offshore Partners adds Hilda Knutsen and refinances $225 million as shuttle tanker supply falls short of demandSep 5GOOGLFairphone Gen 6+ arrives in the US at $650, betting repairability beats the upgrade cycleSep 5NVDAWoot puts refurbished Alienware Aurora 16 within reach at $927Sep 5NVDANvidia's Hugging Face acquisition plan sends Huang's net worth toward $200 billionSep 5DEALSHow the Los Angeles Rams engineered cap room to bring Aaron Donald backSep 4$BTCBlackRock's IBIT hits $70 billion as Fink's Bitcoin view completes its arcSep 4MACROL3Harris Technologies awarded $139 million Navy contract for submarine mastsSep 4REGULATORYCBS Mornings adds Norah O'Donnell as Paramount's $111 billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal faces antitrust trialSep 4DEALSSBR declares USD 0.33168 monthly cash dividend, ex-date September 15Sep 5DEALSASO declares $0.15 quarterly cash dividend, payment set for October 14Sep 5EARNINGSKNOT Offshore Partners adds Hilda Knutsen and refinances $225 million as shuttle tanker supply falls short of demandSep 5GOOGLFairphone Gen 6+ arrives in the US at $650, betting repairability beats the upgrade cycleSep 5NVDAWoot puts refurbished Alienware Aurora 16 within reach at $927Sep 5NVDANvidia's Hugging Face acquisition plan sends Huang's net worth toward $200 billionSep 5DEALSHow the Los Angeles Rams engineered cap room to bring Aaron Donald backSep 4$BTCBlackRock's IBIT hits $70 billion as Fink's Bitcoin view completes its arcSep 4MACROL3Harris Technologies awarded $139 million Navy contract for submarine mastsSep 4REGULATORYCBS Mornings adds Norah O'Donnell as Paramount's $111 billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal faces antitrust trialSep 4

Federal judge blocks Trump's revised birthright citizenship order, White House disputes ruling

A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's Aug. 6 executive order limiting birthright citizenship, the second time U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman has blocked a White House attempt to narrow the 14th Amendment's guarantee. The 35-page ruling came after the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision in Barbara v. Trump, that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth.

By Desmond ChoiNewsroomSeptember 4, 20262 min read
Share

Key takeaways

  • A federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, issued a preliminary injunction against President Trump's Aug. 6 executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
  • It is the second time Boardman has blocked a White House attempt to narrow the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee, and the first injunction to halt the revised order since the Supreme Court's June decision in Barbara v. Trump.
  • The Supreme Court held 5-4 in Barbara v. Trump that children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth.
  • The blocked order targeted children whose parents are designated alien enemies, including Foreign Terrorist Organization members, and children born to foreign parents who paid a U.S. surrogate.
  • The White House disputed the ruling, calling Boardman an activist judge and saying the order is consistent with the Supreme Court's holdings.

A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump's Aug. 6 executive order limiting birthright citizenship, the second time U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman has blocked a White House attempt to narrow the 14th Amendment's guarantee. The 35-page ruling came after the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision in Barbara v. Trump, that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth.

The ruling

Boardman wrote that the 2026 executive order is "almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth." Her injunction is the first to halt the revised order since that June Supreme Court decision. The suit was brought by Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), whose legal director Shana Khader said the White House "has lost before this court, lost before the Supreme Court, and lost again today."

The order targeted children whose parents the government designates as alien enemies, including members of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and children born to foreign parents who paid a surrogate in the United States. Boardman rejected the administration's read of who qualifies as an alien enemy, pointing to two named plaintiffs: Andrea, who fled a region of Mexico where a designated cartel operates and whose child's father has a relative in that group, and Monica, a Venezuelan woman who feared her family could be wrongly tied to the gang Tren de Aragua. The ruling found that children of those "rightly or wrongfully" labeled alien enemies face a credible threat of being denied citizenship outside any recognized constitutional exception.

What to watch

The White House pushed back on the decision. Spokeswoman Lauren Bis said the order "is consistent with the holdings and analysis set forth by the Supreme Court," and the administration labeled Boardman an "activist judge appointed by Biden attempting to thwart President Trump's commonsense agenda." Abhi Kambli, a former Justice Department official, challenged the ruling's legal basis, telling Fox News Digital that a facial challenge requires plaintiffs to demonstrate the order is unlawful across every application. He argued Boardman accepted speculative scenarios about the administration misidentifying someone as an alien enemy and then applying that error to the person's child. Boardman drew on First Circuit precedent to find that a temporary loss of birthright citizenship still causes cascading harm likely to leave "permanent scars" on children and their families, the standard she applied to satisfy the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction.

Related reading

About this story

Filed by the newsroom of MarketPR on September 4, 2026. Source: foxnews.com. Indicative figures are not investment advice.

Back to the news index

Frequently asked

Who brought the lawsuit against the executive order?

The suit was brought by Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), whose legal director Shana Khader said the White House lost before the court, the Supreme Court, and again in this ruling.

Why did Judge Boardman find the order unconstitutional?

Boardman wrote the 2026 order is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class because the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided the children in the class are citizens at birth.

How did the White House respond to the ruling?

The White House pushed back, with spokeswoman Lauren Bis saying the order is consistent with the Supreme Court's holdings, and the administration labeled Boardman an activist judge appointed by Biden.

What legal criticism was raised against the ruling?

Former Justice Department official Abhi Kambli told Fox News Digital that a facial challenge requires showing the order is unlawful across every application, and argued Boardman accepted speculative scenarios about misidentifying someone as an alien enemy.

What standard did Boardman use to find irreparable harm?

Boardman drew on First Circuit precedent finding that a temporary loss of birthright citizenship causes cascading harm likely to leave permanent scars on children and families, satisfying the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction.