A federal judge on Wednesday issued a ruling that blocks the enforcement of former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship in the United States.
The decision halts one of Trump’s most controversial policies, which was set to take effect nationwide on February 19. District Judge Deborah Boardman, in her ruling, emphasized that denying birthright citizenship would cause irreparable harm. She also highlighted that the Supreme Court has long upheld the right to citizenship for those born on U.S. soil, in line with the 14th Amendment.
Boardman wrote that the executive order conflicted with the clear language of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the country. “The denial of the precious right to citizenship will cause irreparable harm,” she stated. “No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”
This ruling follows a similar decision by a federal judge in Washington state in January, who issued a 14-day stay on Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Judge John Coughenour called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional,” prompting Trump to announce his intention to appeal the decision.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which grants citizenship to all individuals born in the United States. Trump’s executive order had argued that individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, thus not entitled to citizenship.
Opponents of the order have pointed to a landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Ark, a Chinese-American man, was initially denied reentry to the U.S. on the grounds that he was not a citizen. The court ruled in his favor, affirming that birthright citizenship applies to the children of immigrants, solidifying the interpretation that those born in the U.S. automatically receive citizenship.
This decision is a significant blow to Trump’s attempt to reshape immigration policy and further emphasizes the ongoing legal battle over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
