A federal judge on Monday, June 30, 2025, sought clarity from the Trump administration on when and how it intends to enforce its executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The inquiry included whether U.S.-born children of individuals residing in the country illegally or on temporary visas might face deportation before the directive is set to take effect later in July.
During the hearing, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman questioned Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg on whether the administration would act on the executive order before the July 26 enforcement deadline established by a recent Supreme Court decision, which paused implementation for 30 days.
Rosenberg assured the court that the administration currently has no intention of deporting children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents during the temporary suspension period. He described the judge’s inquiry as “hypothetical,” and added, “I just want to be clear. I am responding to the court’s characterization of what it believes the United States might do after 30 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision. But, again, I would note that federal agencies have all been tasked with developing guidelines for implementation of the executive order. So I view that as a hypothetical.”
Judge Boardman responded, “I take the government at its word that the United States does not intend to do that and it is not doing that.”
The judge directed Rosenberg to file a written brief by Tuesday outlining what the administration believes it “can and can’t do” following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorney William Powell told the court that many of those affected by the executive order are in a state of confusion and fear. “They’re not lawyers. It is confusing to them exactly what these things mean,” Powell said. “We can’t really assure them, ‘Oh, no, the order is fully blocked,’ because it’s not.” He emphasized that beyond the threat of deportation, plaintiffs were also concerned about other forms of harm, including the potential loss of rights for newborns covered by the executive order.
Judge Boardman, who presides in Greenbelt, Maryland, is one of several federal judges nationwide navigating how to interpret and tailor rulings in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Federal judges in Massachusetts, Washington, and New Hampshire have issued separate rulings addressing the implications of the birthright citizenship order. The New Hampshire ruling, however, applies more narrowly and does not extend nationwide.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, who filed a separate challenge in federal court in Massachusetts along with other states and municipalities, submitted a letter on Monday requesting a hearing to consider whether a nationwide injunction against the executive order is warranted. He argued that such an injunction would not violate the Supreme Court’s recent opinion and noted the court had suggested alternative forms of relief, leaving it to lower courts to determine their scope.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion held that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. However, it did not definitively address whether President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship could proceed in specific jurisdictions.
The long-standing legal principle of birthright citizenship grants U.S. citizenship to any individual born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This right, codified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution shortly after the Civil War, is a cornerstone of U.S. immigration law and is recognized in approximately 30 countries worldwide.
President Trump and his supporters have argued for tighter restrictions on how citizenship is conferred, particularly for children born to non-citizens. The administration’s executive order is seen as a significant attempt to reshape this foundational legal right.
