On Monday, a federal judge pressed the Trump administration to clarify whether it plans to begin enforcing its controversial executive order on birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court’s 30-day suspension expires, and whether that enforcement could include the deportation of U.S.-born babies.
During a hearing in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman questioned Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg on the potential impact of the order before it formally takes effect on July 26. Specifically, she asked whether children born in the U.S. after February 19, whose parents are undocumented or in the country temporarily, could face deportation if they are not listed as plaintiffs in ongoing lawsuits.
“Would the government be seeking to deport babies?” she asked directly. according a report by AP.
RELATED STORIES
Rosenberg dismissed the question as hypothetical, emphasizing that no deportations were planned during the Supreme Court’s 30-day stay. “No,” he responded. “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.”
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
The judge acknowledged his response, saying, “I take the government at its word that the United States does not intend to do that and it is not doing that.”
Still, Judge Boardman ordered the government to provide a written summary by Tuesday outlining what it believes it “can and can’t do” following the high court’s ruling.
Plaintiffs’ attorney William Powell argued that the ruling had already triggered widespread fear among families affected by the executive order. “They’re not lawyers. It is confusing to them exactly what these things mean,” he told the court. “We can’t really assure them, ‘Oh, no, the order is fully blocked,’ because it’s not.”
Powell also cautioned that harm could occur even without deportations. “We’re obviously also concerned about other potential ways in which the (executive) order could be enforced to deprive newborns of potential rights,” he said.
Judge Boardman is not the only federal jurist grappling with how to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. District judges in Massachusetts, Washington state, and New Hampshire have also issued rulings on the issue, though the New Hampshire decision was more limited in scope.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, who is leading a multistate legal challenge in Massachusetts, sent a letter Monday requesting a hearing on the possibility of a nationwide injunction. He argued that such a ruling would not violate the Supreme Court’s decision, which barred courts from issuing nationwide injunctions but left room for alternative remedies, a matter now left to the discretion of lower courts.
The ambiguity at the heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling has left legal experts and public officials unsure whether the president’s executive order could soon be enforced in certain states but blocked in others, a potentially chaotic outcome.
The Trump administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship challenges a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Adopted after the Civil War, this guarantee has long been a cornerstone of American citizenship law. The United States is one of approximately 30 nations that practice birthright citizenship.
Trump and his allies argue that tighter rules are necessary to prevent what they call abuse of the citizenship system, a stance that continues to generate legal and political friction nationwide.
