LOS ANGELES, California, September 5, 2026 — On Friday, a federal judge refused to stop Trump’s new birthright citizenship order right now. At the same hearing, Judge Deborah Boardman continued to aggressively challenge whether the order was even lawful. The ruling in a federal court stayed in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Procedural Delays and Skepticism from the Bench
Boardman also noted the plaintiffs’ current lawsuit doesn’t reference Trump’s 2026 order. The gap meant she was unable to impose a hold on actual enforcement at this point. She allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint and established a quick briefing schedule.
“As far as I know, this is the first of its kind for an order,” Boardman said. The ruling attempted “to erase exceptions to birthright citizenship with a single stroke of the pen—an approach that is fundamentally flawed,” she said. By refusing to act at once, she was expressing extreme skepticism.
Constitutional Challenges and Executive Overreach
But on June 30, Trump’s first-draft order regarding birthright citizenship was denied by the Supreme Court. It focused on children whose parents were not US citizens or green card holders. It was, justices found, a violation of the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment.
After that defeat, Trump signed another order on August 6. The modified order is focused on “birth tourism,” a practice where mothers travel to the U.S. specifically to have their babies there. It would also withhold citizenship from children whose parents are employees of foreign governments.
Immigrant rights advocates had previously received an order from Boardman that stopped what Trump set out to do in 2025. And they asked her to apply that protection to the new August order. Justice Department attorneys disputed the request, saying guidance on how to implement it wouldn’t be available until Sept. 5.
Expedited Briefings and Upcoming Rulings
In light of the evident conflict with precedent, said Boardman, why should the court wait that long. She was referring to the ruling which specifically asked “is there any mention of an adjustment exception versus birth citizenship for birth tourism.” Attorneys from the Justice Department offered no definitive answer during the hearing.
Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint solely relating to the new 2026 order. Before ruling next, Boardman established a quick schedule for briefing. The case could generate a more comprehensive ruling on the order’s constitutionality in weeks.
Though federal agencies are required to make issuance guidance by September 5. Should the policy survive a legal challenge, that guidance could determine how quickly the policy goes into effect. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offers background on citizenship law for foreign applicants.
Immigrant rights groups, which have been confident because of the earlier Supreme Court ruling, believe they have made their case using resources from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Legal experts say the birth tourism provision encounters many of the same constitutional obstacles outlined by the National Immigration Law Center in prior cases. And, families who might be impacted by the order are watching to see how the case progresses.
Legal experts say that an expedited briefing schedule shows the court wants to act swiftly. The case was joined to a slew of legal challenges testing executive limits defined by the Legal Information Institute. The revised complaint could be ruled on soon as weeks.
Boardman’s remarks during the hearing also indicate plaintiffs may have a clear path ahead. The Justice Department has made no indication whether it will change or scale back its implementation plans in response. The case is consistent with a more cautious approach courts have been taking towards executive actions that impact citizenship.
