Where this story comes from
In January 2025, hours after the inauguration, the President signed an executive order stating that a child of foreign parents without status or temporarily present was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore did not have the citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Two federal courts suspended the order as to groups of children defined in litigation. In 2026, according to the Maryland ruling, the Supreme Court held that those children are citizens from birth.
A month after that decision, on August 6, 2026, came Executive Order 14418, published on August 11 in the Federal Register at 91 FR 51991. It does not repeat the 2025 order. It does something different: it says it identifies, non-exhaustively, categories of children of foreign nationals who would not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court. And it directs that no federal agency issue or accept documents recognizing the citizenship of those persons.
What the August order lists
| Situation described in the order | How the text defines it |
|---|---|
| A parent treated as an alien enemy | A member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization or a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. |
| A parent employed by a foreign government | Ambassadors, persons employed by a foreign embassy or consulate who are nationals of that country, persons employed by a foreign government in an official capacity, and persons employed by an international organization with immunity. |
| A commercial transaction to obtain citizenship | Where the parents contract to ensure the mother is in the United States to give birth, or contract with a surrogate present in the country. It also covers fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship. |
| Birth in a territory where citizenship is not granted by statute | A territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by federal statute. |
What the September 2 ruling did
The judge barred the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of USCIS and the Commissioner of Social Security, along with their agents and employees, from applying the August order against members of the group already defined in the case, and from taking any other action that interferes with, fails to recognize or denies those children's citizenship. The bar remains until further order of the court. The President was not covered by the measure.
The reasoning is short and the ruling repeats it several times. The Supreme Court already held, this year, that the children in this group are citizens from birth. An executive order cannot undo what the Supreme Court decided. On that basis the judge found the plaintiffs likely to prevail, recognized irreparable harm in the denial of a constitutional right, and waived the security requirement.
Who is inside the protected group
This is the point most open to misunderstanding, and it is worth reading slowly. The group was defined by the court itself in 2025 and was not expanded now. It brings together three conditions at the same time, all measured on the date of the child's birth.
- The child was born in the United States after February 19, 2025.
- The mother was in the country without lawful status, or with lawful but temporary presence, which is the case of someone on a visitor, student or work visa.
- The father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident on the day of birth.
Anyone who does not meet all three conditions is outside the group and is not reached by this ruling. That includes those born before February 20, 2025 and those whose father was a citizen or permanent resident on the day of birth. Being outside the group does not mean being without rights: it means the specific protection of this court order does not extend to that person, and that their situation has to be examined by another route.
What the ruling did not do
Three limits matter. The judge expressly declined to decide, in the abstract, whether each of the August order's categories is constitutional, and confined her analysis to the order's effect on that group. The category of birth in a territory where citizenship is not conferred by federal statute was not enjoined, because by its own terms it does not threaten the citizenship of anyone in the group. And the court order does not stop the government from developing and issuing the implementing guidance the executive order itself directs.
The ruling is also preliminary. It applies while the case proceeds, it is subject to appeal, and the judge herself noted that the government may move to modify or dissolve the measure after the implementing guidance issues, if there is ground to do so. The August 2025 injunction, which concerns the earlier executive order, remains in effect.
A technical point that decided the case
The government argued that the August order would apply only prospectively, that is, to children not yet born, and that mothers who had already given birth therefore had no standing to challenge it. The judge did not accept this. The text of the 2026 order does not say it applies only to later births, and the 2025 order did. Moreover, government counsel said so in briefing and at the hearing, but filed no formal statement from any official to that effect, despite the court's requests.
That detail explains why the protection reaches children already born, and not only pregnancies under way. For families, it is the difference between arguing about a future risk and arguing about the validity of a document that is already in the drawer.
What to watch from here
- Any government appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As of September 3, 2026 we found no report of an appeal.
- The public implementing guidance provided for in the executive order itself, which the ruling did not block. As of September 3, 2026 we did not find that guidance published.
- A government motion to modify or dissolve the measure once that guidance issues.
- Discussion of the group's definition, which the judge acknowledged could be adjusted by agreement between the parties.
Sources
- CASA, Inc. v. Trump, Civ. No. DLB-25-201, District of Maryland, Memorandum Opinion of September 2, 2026, ECF 181, 35 pages, read in full.
- CASA, Inc. v. Trump, Civ. No. DLB-25-201, District of Maryland, Order and Preliminary Injunction of September 2, 2026, ECF 182, read in full.
- Executive Order 14418, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, signed August 6, 2026 and published at 91 FR 51991, August 11, 2026, FR Doc. 2026-16403. Sections 2 and 3 were read in the full transcription made by the ruling.
- Trump v. Barbara, 146 S. Ct. 2438 (2026). We did not read the original decision; what this text says about it is what the District of Maryland ruling states that it held.
Updated September 3, 2026, based on the September 2, 2026 opinion and order of the District of Maryland, read in full, and on the Federal Register entry for Executive Order 14418. The ruling is preliminary and subject to appeal. The situation may change by decision of a higher court or through the implementing guidance the order itself directs to be published. Confirm the situation before making any decision.