A federal judge issued a ruling on Wednesday blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship in the United States. The decision indefinitely suspends one of Trump’s most controversial policies, which was scheduled to go into effect nationwide on February 19.
According to The New York Times, District Judge Deborah Boardman, in her ruling, stated that denying birthright citizenship would result in irreparable harm. She underscored that Supreme Court precedent firmly supports the right to citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil. Boardman also highlighted that Trump’s order directly contradicts the explicit language of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born within the country.
“The denial of the precious right to citizenship will cause irreparable harm,” Boardman wrote. She added, “No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first,” as reported by The New York Times.
This ruling follows a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington state, who in January imposed a 14-day stay on the executive order. Judge John Coughenour had described the policy as “blatantly unconstitutional,” leading Trump to declare his plans to appeal.
At the heart of the legal battle is the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States. Trump’s executive order contended that individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas were not under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore ineligible for citizenship.
Critics of the order have cited the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled in favor of a Chinese-American man denied reentry to the U.S. on the grounds that he was not a citizen. The landmark decision affirmed that birthright citizenship applies to the children of immigrants, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
The latest ruling represents a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to reinterpret long-standing constitutional principles. Legal experts anticipate further appeals as the case continues to unfold.
