A federal judge in Maryland has once more stopped President Trump's attempt to redefine birthright citizenship, marking yet another setback for a policy that’s sparked fierce debate.

According to CBS News, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction late Thursday, blocking the administration from denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas. This ruling is the fourth nationwide block of the policy since a pivotal Supreme Court decision in June.

President Trump signed this executive order on the first day of his second term, directing federal agencies to halt citizenship documentation for certain children born in the U.S. within 30 days. The policy targets those with at least one undocumented parent or parents on temporary visas, challenging a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Legal Battles Pile Up Against Policy

Judge Boardman’s decision follows a complex legal journey, with her initial injunction in February being disrupted by a June Supreme Court ruling that limited nationwide injunctions. The high court’s 6-3 decision narrowed the scope of such blocks, though it didn’t fully resolve the policy’s fate.

Shortly after that ruling, other courts stepped in, including a New Hampshire court that paused the order nationwide through a class action lawsuit. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also returned Boardman’s case for reconsideration, leading to her latest ruling.

This isn’t just a courtroom skirmish; it’s a fundamental clash over constitutional principles. The administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause excludes certain parents feels like a stretch to many, especially when history suggests otherwise.

Constitutional Questions at the Core

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has long been understood to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, barring narrow exceptions. Trump’s order, however, insists that parents without legal status or permanent ties lack the necessary “allegiance” to qualify under this clause.

Boardman sharply disagreed, stating the plaintiffs are “extremely likely” to succeed in proving the order violates the Constitution. Her ruling also highlighted the potential for irreparable harm if the policy were enforced, a point that cuts through the legal jargon to the human stakes involved.

Let’s be clear: reinterpreting a bedrock amendment by executive fiat raises serious questions about overreach. If allegiance is the new test, what’s to stop future administrations from narrowing citizenship further based on subjective loyalty?

State Challenges and Nationwide Impact

The Supreme Court’s June decision left unresolved whether states can still sue over this order, creating a patchwork of legal challenges. In a separate case, the 9th Circuit faced arguments from the government to limit injunctions to specific states, while states countered that such restrictions ignore the reality of interstate mobility.

Boardman sidestepped this mess by certifying a class of all affected children born or to be born in the U.S. after mid-February 2025. This move ensures broad protection, at least for now, against a policy that could strip fundamental rights from the most vulnerable.

Here’s the rub: limiting relief to certain states while people move freely across borders is a recipe for chaos. The administration’s push for piecemeal enforcement seems less about principle and more about dodging a full reckoning with the Constitution.

A Policy on Shaky Ground

As lawsuits multiply, the policy remains on hold, with two other district courts and an appellate panel joining Boardman in blocking it since June. This isn’t just a legal losing streak; it’s a signal that the judiciary isn’t buying the administration’s rewrite of citizenship rules.

For those of us who value the clarity of constitutional protections over executive whims, these rulings offer a measure of relief. Yet, the fight is far from over, and the tension between federal power and individual rights looms large.

Ultimately, this saga underscores a deeper divide about who gets to call America home. While the courts hold the line for now, the real question is whether such a divisive policy can withstand the weight of history and principle in the long run.