President Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship hit another roadblock this weekend, as a series of lower court rulings kept the controversial executive order from taking effect—even after the Supreme Court cleared a potential legal path for it last month.
The president’s order, signed on January 20, was set to be implemented Sunday following a 30-day pause imposed by the Supreme Court. But three separate decisions by lower courts have now halted its enforcement, with judges concluding that the order is likely unconstitutional. More rulings against the policy may be on the way.
A major blow came earlier this month when U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire blocked the order nationwide in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU. That ruling has not yet been appealed by the Justice Department.
The administration was further stymied by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week, which upheld a Seattle judge’s earlier nationwide injunction. The appeals court found that the broad order was justified, especially since multiple states would be impacted by the policy. The 9th Circuit also reviewed the constitutionality of the policy itself and concluded it violated the 14th Amendment—a decision that could prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the case.
Then on Friday, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston reaffirmed his nationwide injunction, writing that narrowing the order would not be sufficient to prevent serious harm to more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, and several cities. Sorokin, an Obama appointee, again found Trump’s order to be unconstitutional and in direct conflict with federal law.
These rulings come after a June 27 Supreme Court decision that limited the use of nationwide injunctions. The justices instructed lower courts to reassess whether such broad orders were truly necessary. Trump’s legal team had hoped the decision would clear the way for enforcement of the birthright policy. But judges across the country have declined to lift their injunctions, saying the expansive relief is needed to protect plaintiffs from irreparable harm.
The Trump administration has been vague in court about exactly how and when the order would be implemented once allowed. “It’s an unusual situation, what the Supreme Court did,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said in court earlier this month.
Trump’s executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” states that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants—or to foreign nationals in the country on temporary visas—will no longer be granted automatic citizenship. But judges have pointed to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and an 1898 Supreme Court precedent (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) as clear legal barriers to such a move.
Despite mounting legal setbacks, the administration has not ruled out appealing the recent decisions. Still, legal scholars say the White House’s earlier decision to bring the Supreme Court a narrow procedural question—rather than the core legality of the order—may have backfired.
“They made a calculated choice,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. “The administration went to the Supreme Court not to defend the executive order on the merits, but to chip away at lower court authority over presidential actions.”
Another legal challenge is advancing in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, who previously blocked the order, has indicated she may reimpose a nationwide injunction after plaintiffs refiled as a class-action. That case would first need to be returned to her by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the administration has yet to release any public guidance on how it plans to enforce the birthright order. DOJ attorney Hamilton told Sorokin last month that agencies are working on internal implementation plans but offered no timeline for their release.
As it stands, every federal court that has reviewed Trump’s policy has declared it unconstitutional—leaving the administration with limited legal maneuverability and a fast-closing window to enforce one of the president’s most contentious immigration measures.
