Federal Court Blocks the August 2026 Birthright Citizenship Order for Children of Non-Citizen Parents: What It Means for Texas Families and What a Lawyer Can Review

What Changed, and When

The Supreme Court ruling, June 30, 2026. In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the first birthright citizenship order, Executive Order 14160 of January 20, 2025, could not be enforced. As SCOTUSblog summarized the decision, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts described the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause as having a “broad reach,” with “narrow” exceptions limited to the children of foreign ministers and members of certain 19th-century Indian tribes. The court’s later opinion in this case quotes the Supreme Court’s holding that children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States are “citizens at birth.”

The new order, August 6, 2026. Executive Order 14418, “Continuing To Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was signed on August 6 and published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2026 (91 FR 51991). Section 2 states the policy that no federal department or agency shall issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to, or accept state or local documents purporting to recognize the citizenship of, a person when neither parent is a citizen and any of four conditions applies: (a) either parent is an “alien enemy,” defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization or a Specially Designated Global Terrorist; (b) either parent is a foreign government employee, including ambassadors, nationals of a foreign country employed by that country’s embassy or consulate, persons employed by a foreign government in an official capacity, and employees of international organizations with immunity; (c) either parent engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship, including arranging for the mother to be present in the United States to give birth or contracting with a surrogate in the United States; or (d) the person was born in a U.S. territory where citizenship is not conferred by statute. Section 3 directs the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of Social Security to align their policies with the order, and requires every agency to issue public implementation guidance within 30 days of August 6, 2026.

The court ruling, September 2, 2026. In CASA, Inc. v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md.), Document 181, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted a classwide preliminary injunction in a 35-page opinion. The court wrote that “[t]he 2026 Executive Order is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth.” The injunction bars the defendant agencies, their officers and anyone acting with them “from enforcing or applying the 2026 Executive Order against any member of the certified class or from taking any other action to interfere with, deny, or fail to recognize the citizenship of any member of the certified class.” The court did not enjoin subsection 2(d), which concerns U.S. territories, and did not enjoin Section 3(b), the requirement that agencies publish implementation guidance. It noted that the government may move to modify or dissolve the injunction after that guidance issues, and it required no bond. The opinion records that the government stated at an August 28, 2026 hearing that the order applies only to children born in the future, and observes that “[n]owhere in the order does it indicate it does not apply to children already born.”

The class that is protected. The injunction covers the class this court certified in 2025: any child born in the United States after February 19, 2025 (1) whose mother was unlawfully present and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth, or (2) whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. The opinion notes this class is identical to the class the Supreme Court addressed in Barbara.

A related passport proposal, reported September 1, 2026. Newsweek, citing Reuters, reported that the State Department is considering draft guidance under which parents applying for a child’s passport would be required to provide evidence of their own citizenship or immigration status so the department can determine whether the applicant is subject to Executive Order 14418. The article quoted a State Department spokesman saying the department does not validate leaked documents and reported that the proposal had not been finalized. Under current rules, parents generally show the child’s proof of citizenship, proof of the parental relationship and photo identification, but not separate proof of their own status.

The Texas Order on “Birth Tourism,” July 21, 2026

Texas has its own recent action on the subject, aimed at providers rather than at children. On July 21, 2026, Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order GA-57, which, as CBS Texas reported, directs the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Department of State Health Services, the HHSC Office of Inspector General, the Texas Medical Board, the Texas Board of Nursing and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation to investigate what the order calls birth tourism schemes in the state’s health-care industry. Enforcement under the order can include suspending or revoking a provider’s license, barring participation in state contracts, or denying state benefits. The order followed an investigation the Governor had directed earlier in July into marketing by Mission Regional Medical Center in the Rio Grande Valley; the hospital stated that it was describing its services in the way hospitals across the country do and that the materials in question are no longer in use. Houston Public Media reported that the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates births to visiting tourists at fewer than 30,000 of the roughly 3.5 million births in the United States each year, and quoted immigration attorneys who raised concerns about the order’s effect on access to care. GA-57 regulates licensed providers; it does not change who is a citizen, and no Texas order can.

Who in Texas This Reaches

• Families with a child born in Texas since February 20, 2025 where the mother was undocumented, or was here on a visitor, student, work or other temporary status, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or green-card holder. Those children are in the protected class, and the injunction bars federal agencies from refusing to recognize their citizenship under the 2026 order while it is in effect.
• Families whose child was born before February 20, 2025. These children are not in the certified class. The government told the court the order applies only prospectively; the court noted the order’s text does not say so. Whether the order could be applied to an older child is a question the injunction does not answer.
• Families of foreign-government and consular employees. Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio all host foreign consulates. Subsection 2(b) reaches the children of nationals employed by an embassy or consulate and of employees of international organizations with immunity. The court found the order likely unconstitutional as applied to the class; whether a particular consular family falls within the class or within the traditional diplomatic exception depends on the parents’ actual status and immunity.
• Families who used a surrogate in Texas and intended parents from abroad. Subsection 2(c)(ii) names a commercial transaction with a surrogate present in the United States. The Supreme Court’s reasoning, as the district court applied it, turns on whether the child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, not on how the pregnancy was arranged.
• Parents who fear a designation. Subsection 2(a) applies when either parent is a member of a designated terrorist organization. The court cited “examples of the government hastily and without credible evidence attempting to remove people from the United States because of purported affiliations with groups deemed alien enemies” in accepting the plaintiffs’ concern that a child could be denied citizenship on the basis of a label.
• Anyone with a passport, Social Security or benefits application pending for a U.S.-born child in Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, Laredo and every other part of the state. The agencies named in the order, the State Department, DHS and the Social Security Administration, are the ones that issue the documents families use every day.

What This Changes Legally

• For class members, the 2026 order cannot be enforced. The injunction is in effect now. It directs the defendant agencies not to apply Executive Order 14418 to any member of the certified class and not to take any other action to interfere with, deny or fail to recognize a class member’s citizenship. The court did not enjoin the President personally; it enjoined the agencies that would carry the order out.
• A Texas birth certificate remains the starting document. The order directed federal agencies not to accept state or local documents “purporting to recognize United States citizenship” for the listed categories. For class members, the injunction bars that refusal. Texas birth certificates are issued by the Department of State Health Services Vital Statistics Section and were never the subject of the federal order.
• The guidance requirement stands. Section 3(b) of the order, which requires each agency to publish implementation guidance within 30 days of August 6, was not enjoined, and the 30-day period runs through the first week of September 2026. What that guidance says about passports, Social Security numbers and benefits is the next thing to watch, and the court invited the government to return after it issues.
• The passport proposal is not in effect. The State Department draft reported on September 1 had not been finalized as of that report. Current passport rules for a child under 16 are published by the State Department and have not changed.
• The case is not over. A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo while a case proceeds. The government may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or seek other review, and the injunction remains in effect unless a court modifies it. The Supreme Court’s decision in Barbara concerned the 2025 order; the 2026 order is a new document and will be litigated on its own terms.
• Nothing in the ruling changes a parent’s own status. The case is about the citizenship of children born in the United States. It does not grant, deny or alter any immigration status of a parent.

None of this determines any individual family’s situation. Whether a specific child is in the certified class, which documents establish that, and what to do about an application that has already been delayed or denied are questions that turn on the family’s facts and records.

What Kind of Option Might Apply

This page is information, not legal advice, and no article can tell a reader what their child’s status is or what an agency will decide. What a lawyer can review includes:

• For a family with a newborn or young child born in Texas since February 2025: an immigration lawyer can review the child’s birth record and the parents’ status at the time of birth, explain whether the child appears to fall within the protected class, and help assemble the documents a passport office or Social Security office will ask for.
• For a passport, Social Security number or benefits application that has been questioned, delayed or denied: a lawyer can review the notice, identify what the agency relied on, and explain what administrative review or court option may be available, including whether the denial appears to conflict with the September 2 injunction.
• For consular, international-organization and surrogacy families: a lawyer can review the parents’ visa category and any immunity, which is the fact the order and the constitutional exception both turn on.
• For a parent who is in removal proceedings or has a pending case: a deportation defense lawyer can review how a U.S.-citizen child figures in the parent’s own case, since some forms of relief take a citizen child into account, and coordinate the child’s documentation with the parent’s matter.
• For a family that believes an agency acted against the injunction: a civil rights lawyer can review whether a claim or a request to the court that issued the injunction may exist. The certified class is represented by counsel in the Maryland case, and a family may also consult its own lawyer.
• For a family making a plan: an immigration lawyer can review the whole family’s documents together, including the child’s certified birth certificate and the parents’ records, so that a future application does not become a crisis. A lawyer’s office is the place for that conversation; intake belongs with the attorney, not with an article.

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

This is a fast-moving subject. The agencies’ 30-day guidance window under Section 3(b) closes in early September 2026, the State Department is reported to be considering new documentation requirements for children’s passports, and the court has said the government may return to seek changes to the injunction once guidance issues. An appeal could also change the picture. Families who already have a certified birth certificate, a Social Security card and a passport for their child hold documents that are easier to keep than to obtain later, and families whose applications are pending or have been denied have review windows that start when the notice arrives, not when a lawyer is found. It is best to talk with a lawyer early, while the widest range of options is still open and while the injunction is in effect.

Sources

1. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, CASA, Inc. v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00201-DLB, Memorandum Opinion, Document 181 (September 2, 2026) (primary document: the certified class, the scope of the injunction, subsections not enjoined, the August 28 hearing). Docket at CourtListener.
2. Federal Register, Executive Order 14418 of August 6, 2026, Continuing To Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, 91 FR 51991 (published August 11, 2026) (primary document: Sections 2 and 3).
3. Office of the Texas Governor, Governor Abbott Issues Executive Order Cracking Down On Birth Tourism Schemes (Executive Order GA-57, July 21, 2026) (primary document).
4. SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe, Judge temporarily halts Trump’s latest birthright citizenship order (September 3, 2026).
5. El Paso Matters, Judge blocks Trump’s new bid to curb birthright citizenship, citing Supreme Court precedent (September 3, 2026).
6. Reason, The Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin, Federal Court Issues First Ruling Against Trump’s New Birthright Citizenship Executive Order (September 2, 2026) (commentary; cited for its description of the class and the four categories).
7. Newsweek, Trump Admin’s Potential Passport Rule for Children Raises Legal Questions (September 1, 2026) (reporting the Reuters account of the State Department draft guidance and the department’s statement).
8. CBS Texas, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs executive order over “birth tourism,” targets hospitals and providers (updated July 22, 2026).
9. Houston Public Media via Texas Public Radio, Andrew Schneider, Gov. Greg Abbott orders state health agencies to crack down on ‘birth tourism’ (July 21, 2026).