And here we go again. A federal judge has slapped an injunction on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which he signed less than a month ago.

Our readers will remember that the Supreme Court ruled back in June that their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (in a 5-4 decision) meant that only the restrictions laid out before (children of diplomats, for example) applied, and anyone else born on American soil was automatically granted citizenship. The Trump administration then issued two executive orders, one regarding birth tourism (which was not challenged) and one regarding the status of the parents when a child is born.

It is the policy of the United States that no executive department or agency shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship to, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship regarding, persons when neither parent of that person is a citizen and any of the following applies:

(a) either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under 8 U.S.C. 1189 or Specially Designated Global Terrorist, consistent with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 (Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism), as amended;

(b) either parent of that person is a foreign government employee, defined to include:

(i) ambassadors;

(ii) persons employed by a foreign embassy or consulate who are nationals of that foreign country;

(iii) persons employed by a foreign government in an official capacity; and

(iv) persons employed by an international organization that possess international-organization immunity;

(c) either parent of that person engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the person, or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship, to include:

(i) when the parent(s) of the person engage in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth; or

(ii) when the parent(s) engage in a commercial transaction with a surrogate present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth;

(d) the person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.

Parts of part b above are already enshrined in law, but the expansion of the categories – regarding surrogacy and members of terrorist groups – was challenged in court by special interest groups. And you’ll NEVER guess which president appointed the judge who made the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman granted a preliminary injunction in a case brought by two immigration advocacy groups that had also challenged the Trump administration’s initial attempt last year to limit who is eligible for automatic citizenship at birth.

Boardman wrote in a 35-page opinion that the new directive was “almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class,” pointing to the Supreme Court decision in June that struck down Trump’s Day 1 executive order.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them,” Boardman, a Biden appointee, wrote.

Her order prohibits the administration from enforcing the new restriction against any child born after February 19, 2025, to one or both parents who were not lawfully in the country at the time.

The Justice Department defended the new restrictions as narrower than what was previously struck down and claimed that the plaintiffs’ case was premature because the president’s order has not yet been implemented.

Boardman noted that she found those arguments “unpersuasive” and said that the administration was relying on a “distorted interpretation” of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Though the defendants may not like it, the Barbara Court’s conclusion was clear: The children in the class ‘satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause’—place and jurisdiction—and they are thus ‘citizens at birth,’” the judge wrote.

For the record, Boardman is the same judge who gutted the sentence of the would-be Justice Kavanaugh assassin. What a joy she is.

This case will undoubtedly make its way back up the court ladder once again. With the EO more narrowly tailored, will it survive challenges? Who knows. The easiest way for this to be solved would be with Congress passing a law to enforce these specific cases. Members of terrorist groups is pretty straightforward, but surrogacy is one of those issues where the law has not kept pace with the science. A current case in Florida has a surrogate fighting the biological father, a Chinese national, for custody of two baby boys. It’s a mess, and yet another example of how birth tourism has and will continue to evolve over time. The most recent example of why this issue must be addressed in law was on display Tuesday, when a doctor in Florida was subpoenaed to appear in front of Congress regarding his “Have My Baby In Miami” business. No surprise, the doctor, Wladimir Lorentz, pleaded the Fifth.

And Representative Brandon Gill absolutely put Dr. Lorentz (who took his cues from Anthony Fauci) through a very extensive list of questions that he refused to answer.

Task Force Chairman Gill: “Your website says over 2,000 deliveries of international patients so far, so I think we can assume it’s over 2000. The website continues; it’s got a section for documentation, health insurance advising foreign nationals on how to obtain international health insurance, housing in the United States, even. It’s quite thorough, Dr. Lorentz. This website isn’t public anymore. What motivated you to take down, or at least substantially modify, this website for Have My Baby in Miami after we first wrote to you about birth tourism in May?”

Dr. Lorentz: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Task Force Chairman Gill: “Does your business help children of members of the Chinese Communist Party obtain American citizenship?”

Dr. Lorentz: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Task Force Chairman Gill: “Have you ever facilitated the childbirth in America for a member of Tren de Aragua, MS-13, or any other narco-terrorist organization?”

Dr. Lorentz: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question on the grounds that a truthful answer may tend to incriminate me, and I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

While the AP notes that legally, birth tourism is considered fraud, there has never yet been a child born who has had their birthright citizenship removed on those grounds. And “businesses” like Dr. Lorentz’s are ground zero for those foreign nationals who plan to have an “American” baby.

Where does this ruling leave us? Unfortunately, it puts most of the burden on the bureaucrats at the State Department, who are tasked with denying visas to pregnant women – if they know they are pregnant. But the Justice Department should be working up charges against Dr. Lorentz in order to send a message. But in the end, the only way this is permanently fixed is with a constitutional amendment, not to mention new laws that address foreign nationals seeking American surrogate mothers.

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license