US judge blocks Trump's newest order limiting birthright citizenship

The US Supreme Court on June 30 rejected that initial effort to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents were not American citizens or legal permanent residents, ​known as green card holders, finding it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The clause, which was the focus of the Supreme Court's ​6-3 ruling in Barbara v. Trump, confers citizenship to those born in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

"Following that ⁠decision, Trump signed a new order on August 6 that took particular aim at "birth tourism," in which women travel to the United States to give birth so their ​children can obtain automatic citizenship.

Citizenship would also be denied to children if one of their parents works for foreign governments in the United States, engages in fraud or a commercial ​transaction to obtain citizenship, or is classified as an "alien enemy.

"After he signed that order, lawyers pursuing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of babies who would be deprived citizenship under Trump's 2025 order asked Boardman to block enforcement of the Republican president's newest order, and ensure their clients' citizenship continued to be honored.

The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, agreed to do so, saying the ​latest 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.

""The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are 'citizens at birth,'" she wrote. Her order bars agencies including the US Department of State, the US Department of Homeland ‌Security, and ⁠the Social Security Administration from taking any action to interfere with, deny or fail to recognize citizenship of children covered by the class action.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ADMINISTRATION SAID LAWSUIT PREMATUREThe plaintiffs included the immigrant rights groups CASA and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, which last year convinced Boardman to become one of four lower-court judges to block Trump's initial order prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

“Immigrant families should not have to come back to court to defend the rights of their U.S.-born children and ​others whose citizenship is being questioned by ​a new executive order," Conchita Cruz, ⁠co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said in a statement.

Justice Department attorneys argued that an injunction was inappropriate in this case, as Trump's order was more narrow than the sweeping one the plaintiffs first sued over. They also called the lawsuit premature, saying ​federal agencies had yet to issue the necessary public guidance detailing how the president's directive would be implemented, which they are ​expected to do by ⁠Saturday.

Any legal challenge should wait until then, the administration argued. But Boardman said an injunction was needed now, saying that while the Justice Department claimed the order would be applied only prospectively, by its plain terms it "applies to all children who meet its criteria, regardless of when they were born.

""This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President's most recent ⁠attempt to ​strip the right to citizenship from them," she wrote. While Boardman blocked enforcement of Trump's order, she said ​agencies could still issue guidance on how Trump's order would be implemented.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that the U.S. State Department had drafted proposed guidance requiring parents applying for passports for their children to provide proof of their ​own citizenship or immigration status in order to implement that executive order.