A federal judge in Maryland has solidified a hold on an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that aimed to limit birthright citizenship for children of migrants lacking legal status.

Judge Deborah Boardman's decision holds that Trump's order contradicts longstanding U.S. citizenship principles and likely breaches a historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as The Hill reports.

In detailing her ruling, Boardman explained that the executive order runs counter to over two centuries of the United States' tradition of granting citizenship by birth.

Added to the concern is that the executive order likely infringes upon the 1898 Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals.

Federal Opposition to Trump's Executive Order

Previously, another federal judge in Seattle also temporarily halted Trump's executive order. That ruling, however, was scheduled to expire on Thursday before a new hearing could be conducted, amplifying the urgency of the Maryland ruling.

Boardman's decision ensures the order remains blocked pending a final ruling on the constitutional claims brought forth by the plaintiffs, a process that could take several months.

Trump issued the executive order on his first day in office, which would affect children born on or after Feb. 19 of this year. The order is part of a series of immigration-related actions undertaken by his administration early in the presidency.

Legal Arguments And Challenges

Eric Hamilton from the Department of Justice presented an argument that the Trump administration's interpretation aligns with the 1898 Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship.

However, Boardman refuted this position, expressing that no court has previously endorsed the president's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, Boardman emphasized that maintaining the status quo with an injunction is vital to protecting the public interest and that the government would not suffer harm from a preliminary injunction against an executive order likely to be found unconstitutional.

Lawsuits Emerge Nationwide Against Birthright Citizenship Order

In Maryland, the relevant court case involves two immigrant rights organizations and five anonymous expectant mothers without permanent legal status.

In total, nine lawsuits have emerged nationwide against the executive order, gathering supporters including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and numerous advocacy groups.

The legal challenges highlight the limited exceptions to the birthright citizenship guarantee under the 14th Amendment, which include children of foreign diplomats, those born on foreign ships, children of enemies during hostile occupation, and Native American tribe members.

Boardman's Take on U.S. Citizenship Traditions

Boardman underscored the nation's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship by asserting, "Virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a citizen upon birth." She further stated that this tradition and law will persist pending the case's resolution.

The legal battlefield surrounding Trump's executive order and birthright citizenship reflects a broader debate on immigration policies in the United States. With ongoing litigation, the Maryland ruling offers a temporary reprieve for those opposing the order.

Long-Term Implications and Legal Outlook

Joseph Mead, special litigation counsel for the plaintiffs, added to the conversation by noting the generational promise of birthright citizenship, underscoring his belief in its fundamental role in America's identity.

As the case progresses, the judicial system will continue to weigh the constitutionality and broader impact of Trump's executive order, determining its alignment with historic precedents and principles.

The outcome will influence not only current policy but also shape the future debate over immigration and citizenship laws in the nation.