US judge denies injunction against Trump’s new birthright citizenship order

A United States district judge has rejected, for now, a request for a temporary restraining order that would block President Donald Trump’s second executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The decision, issued on Friday, means that immigrant‑rights advocates must revise their petition before the court can again consider an injunction. The ruling is a temporary setback for a coalition of families and advocacy groups who are fighting the new order, which was issued on August 6 after Trump’s first attempt to limit birthright citizenship was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2025.

Judge Deborah Boardman, appointed by former President Joe Biden, declined to grant the preliminary injunction despite expressing concerns about the legality of the order. “As far as I can tell, this is unprecedented,” she said. Boardman instructed the plaintiffs— a coalition that includes We Are CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project—to address the latest executive order directly in their lawsuit. She said she would schedule a briefing once a revised complaint is filed and would reconsider the restraining order then.

The case is part of an ongoing legal battle over birthright citizenship, a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment, adopted in 1868, declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a child born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco could not be denied citizenship. Only a few exceptions—children of foreign diplomats or occupying military forces—fall outside the amendment’s scope.

Trump has repeatedly argued that children of irregular or temporary immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore should not receive birthright citizenship. On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, he signed an executive order barring government agencies from issuing citizenship documents to children whose parents were “unlawfully present” or whose presence was “lawful but temporary.” The order was quickly challenged in court and, on June 30, the Supreme Court struck it down in a 6‑3 decision, ruling it unconstitutional.

The second order, issued August 6, narrows the scope of the restriction. It denies citizenship to children born to non‑citizen parents who are deemed “alien enemies” or “terrorists,” as well as those whose parents engage in a commercial transaction to secure birthright citizenship or to keep an expectant mother in the United States to give birth. Children of people from U.S. territories where citizenship is not conferred by federal statute—such as American Samoa—would also be excluded. Trump promoted the order as a safeguard against “the risks posed by malign foreign actors who attempt to swindle American citizens by taking advantage of the generosity of our Nation.” Critics say it is another attempt to strip immigrant children of their civil rights.

The coalition of immigrant families and rights groups has argued that the executive branch cannot decide who is a citizen by birth. In a memorandum dated August 24, their lawyers wrote: “It is well within the ambit of this case for the Court to enjoin Defendants from depriving class members of citizenship — no matter how many times the President, who has no power to change the law of birthright citizenship, directs them to do so.” The memorandum also contended that there was no need for the coalition to amend its complaint before the court could issue further injunctive relief, because the principle at stake remains the same: the President cannot deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil. The lawyers added: “They are entitled to have their citizenship recognized by the Executive Branch no matter how many overlapping Executive Orders the President issues in his attempt to override the Constitution.”

Judge Boardman’s decision does not resolve the underlying legal dispute. The case is expected to continue, with the plaintiffs filing a revised petition for a temporary restraining order. The outcome of that proceeding will determine whether the new executive order remains in effect or is halted while the court considers whether it violates the Constitution. The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s immigration policy ambitions and the constitutional protections that have governed birthright citizenship for more than a century.