2026-09-03 16:30 EDT / 福克斯新闻
法官黛博拉·博德曼称，根据美国宪法第十四修正案，该行政令“几乎肯定违宪”
作者：伊莱恩·马隆 福克斯新闻
发布于2026年9月3日下午4:30 EDT
法官叫停特朗普的出生公民权行政令
国土安全部部长马克韦恩·马伦谈及联邦法官叫停唐纳德·特朗普总统最新的出生公民权行政令、纽约州州长凯西·霍楚尔针对移民海关执法局扫荡行动的回应，以及近期一起紧急迫降事件。
NEW 现在可以收听福克斯新闻文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/80ba62e8-1224-426e-951a-27b41f71f072
收听本文
5 分钟
拜登任命的一名法官暂时叫停了唐纳德·特朗普总统最新一项旨在限制出生公民权的行政令，这引发了又一场围绕第十四修正案适用范围的备受瞩目的法律战。
在一份长达35页的裁决中，美国地区法官黛博拉·博德曼对白宫8月6日发布的行政令发布了初步禁令。该行政令发布于最高法院在“芭芭拉诉特朗普案”中确认出生公民权一个月后。这是最高法院6月确认出生公民权以来，首次有法院叫停特朗普修订后的出生公民权行政令。
博德曼此前曾在最高法院就该问题作出裁决前，叫停过特朗普最初的出生公民权行政令。
特朗普的行政令旨在限制两类儿童的出生公民权：一是父母被认定为敌对外国人的儿童，包括指定外国恐怖组织成员的子女；二是外国父母在美国雇代孕母亲所生的儿童，此外还有其他多项限制措施。该行政令促使法院指定特别倡导者（CASA）对特朗普政府提起诉讼。
特朗普出生公民权之争借“入侵者”论调卷土重来，效仿卡瓦诺的法律路径
2025年5月15日，示威者聚集在华盛顿特区最高法院外，支持出生公民权。（肯特·西村/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
博德曼在裁决中写道：“2026年行政令几乎肯定违宪，原因很简单，最高法院在芭芭拉案中已经裁定，该群体的儿童自出生起就是美国公民。本院必须再次初步禁止执行总统最新一次试图剥夺他们公民权的举措。”
白宫驳斥博德曼的裁决，称其是“拜登任命的激进派法官试图阻挠特朗普总统符合常识的议程”。
白宫发言人劳伦·比斯在一份声明中表示：“这项出生公民权行政令符合最高法院的裁决和分析。”
在最高法院以5票赞成、4票反对就出生公民权的宪法问题作出裁决后，最高法院在“芭芭拉诉特朗普案”中裁定，父母非法或暂时留在美国境内所生的子女，根据第十四修正案属于“自出生起即为公民”。
特朗普第二轮更严苛的出生公民权策略取决于关键法律区别，专家称
2025年6月27日，示威者在美国最高法院外举着反特朗普标语。（亚历克斯·弗罗布莱夫斯基/法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
尽管最高法院承认出生公民权存在例外情况，比如外国外交官的子女或敌人在敌对占领美国领土期间出生的儿童，但博德曼驳回了特朗普最新针对被认定为敌对外国人父母所生子女的行政令。她同意原告对特朗普政府“对合格敌人范围的宽泛定义”的担忧。原告方指控特朗普政府“有时基于虚假或推测性指控得出结论，甚至仅凭纹身或家族关系这类牵强的标志”。
博德曼提到了两名原告：一名是从墨西哥某贩毒集团活动区域逃离的安德里亚，其孩子的父亲与该集团有亲属关系；另一名是委内瑞拉女子莫妮卡，她担心自己的家人会被错误地与阿拉瓜火车贩毒集团扯上关系。
特朗普签署行政令针对出生公民权和生育旅游，最高法院受挫后
2025年6月27日，唐纳德·特朗普总统在白宫举行的新闻发布会上发言，此前最高法院发布了限制出生公民权适用范围的裁决。（穆罕默德·埃瑟/中东图片社 via 法新社）
“即使父母被政府‘正确或错误地’认定为敌对外国人，这些儿童也面临着‘被否认或剥夺出生公民权的可信威胁’……尽管他们并不属于公认的出生公民权例外情况”，博德曼写道。
然而，前司法部官员阿比·坎布利表示，博德曼是在猜测特朗普政府可能会错误地以某人属于外国恐怖组织为由剥夺其公民权。
“从法律上讲，这一裁决的缺陷在于，它是对整个行政令的全面面挑战，”坎布利告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。“所以从法律术语来说，当涉及全面面挑战时，你必须证明该行政令在所有适用场景下都是非法的，而不仅仅是边缘或 borderline 案例。”
“她不想深入探讨在‘特朗普诉芭芭拉案’中，这是否通常属于例外情况，但她表示，根据政府过往的解释，以及阿拉瓜火车贩毒集团和其他组织相关事件的情况，她认同原告的推测：政府这次可能会出错，进而影响他们的子女，因此应当禁止该行政令的执行，”坎布利补充道。
订阅获取政治新闻简报
博德曼援引第一巡回法院的措辞认定，根据新行政令剥夺公民权将造成不可弥补的损害——这是发布初步禁令的必要条件之一。
“即便只是暂时剥夺出生公民权，随后在诉讼结束后恢复，也会产生连锁反应，‘极有可能给儿童及其家庭留下永久伤痕’，裁决书中写道。”
莫妮卡对初步禁令表示欢迎。
“在我怀孕期间，我一直非常焦虑，担心我的孩子一出生就会成为无国籍人士，”莫妮卡在一份声明中说道。“目前，我的孩子和像我孩子一样的儿童得到了保护，获得美国公民身份的权利得到了保障。但我知道这还没有结束。对出生公民权的威胁仍然存在。我将继续为我的孩子，以及所有在美国出生的孩子争取永久保护而斗争。”
点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序
“在攻击出生公民权这件事上，特朗普政府在本院败诉过，在最高法院败诉过，今天又再次败诉，”我们是CASA组织的法律总监莎娜·卡德在一份声明中说道。“白宫必须认识到，它无法成功剥夺儿童的公民权，无法回避具有约束力的法院裁决，也无法将总统的反移民议程置于宪法之上。我们非常自豪能够与那些经历了一年多恐惧和不确定性，仍拒绝放弃子女宪法权利的家庭并肩作战。”
伊莱恩·马隆是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治新闻。
White House rips ‘activist’ Biden judge who upended Trump birthright citizenship order
2026-09-03 16:30 EDT / Fox News
Judge Deborah Boardman called the order ‘almost certainly unconstitutional’ under the 14th Amendment
By Elaine Mallon Fox News
Published September 3, 2026 4:30pm EDT
Judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin discusses a federal judge blocking President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s response to ICE crackdowns and a recent emergency landing.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/80ba62e8-1224-426e-951a-27b41f71f072
Listen to this article
5 min
A Biden-appointed judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s latest executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, setting up another high-profile legal battle over the scope of the 14th Amendment.
In a 35-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction against the Oval Office’s Aug. 6 executive order, which was issued a month after the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in its ruling in Barbara v. Trump. The injunction is the first to halt Trump’s revised birthright citizenship order since the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in June.
Boardman previously blocked Trump’s original birthright citizenship executive order before the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.
Trump’s order sought to limit birthright citizenship for children whose parents are deemed alien enemies, including members of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and children whose foreign parents paid a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth, among several other restrictions. The executive order prompted Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT COMES ROARING BACK WITH ‘INVADERS’ PLAY AFTER KAVANAUGH ROADMAP
Demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in support of birthright citizenship, May 15, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty)
“The 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,” Boardman wrote in her ruling. “This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”
The White House rejected Boardman’s ruling as the work of an “activist judge appointed by Biden attempting to thwart President Trump’s commonsense agenda.”
“The birthright citizenship executive order is consistent with the holdings and analysis set forth by the Supreme Court,” Lauren Bis, White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.
In a 5-4 decision on the constitutional question of birthright citizenship, the high court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are “citizens at birth” under the 14th Amendment in Barbara v. Trump.
TRUMP’S TOUGHER ROUND-TWO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP STRATEGY HINGES ON KEY LEGAL DISTINCTION, EXPERTS SAY
Demonstrators hold up an anti-Trump sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025.(Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)
While the Supreme Court has acknowledged exceptions to birthright citizenship, such as children of foreign diplomats or children born during an enemy’s hostile occupation of U.S. soil, Boardman rejected Trump’s latest executive order targeting children born to alleged alien enemies. She agreed with the plaintiffs’ concerns over the Trump administration’s “broad view of who qualifies as an enemy.” The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration had “sometimes resting its conclusions on false or speculative allegations, or even tenuous markers like tattoos or family affiliations.”
Boardman pointed to two plaintiffs — Andrea, who fled an area of Mexico where a designated cartel operates and whose child’s father has a relative in the group, and Monica, a Venezuelan woman who fears her family could be wrongly linked to Tren de Aragua.
TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS TARGETING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, BIRTH TOURISM AFTER SUPREME COURT SETBACK
President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House, on June 27, 2025, following a Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of birthright citizenship.(Mehmet Eser/Middle East Images via AFP)
“Children whose parents may ‘rightly or wrongfully’ be deemed by the government to be alien enemies face a credible threat of “being denied or stripped of their birthright citizenship … even though they do not fall within a recognized exception to birthright citizenship,” Boardman wrote.
However, Abhi Kambli, a former Justice Department official, said Boardman was speculating on how the Trump administration could incorrectly bar someone from citizenship based upon being part of a foreign terrorist organization.
“Legally, where that falls short is that it’s a facial challenge to the entire executive order,” Kambli told Fox News Digital. “So, in legal terms, when something’s a facial challenge, you have to demonstrate that it’s unlawful in all of its applications, and not just the edge, the borderline cases.”
“She didn’t want to wade into the territory of whether that fits as an exception generally within Trump v. Barbara, but she said that based on how they’ve interpreted it in the past and in terms of what happened with Tren de Aragua and other organizations, she bought into plaintiff speculation that maybe they’ll get it wrong this time, and then that’ll affect their kids, and then that’s why it should get barred,” Kambli continued.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Boardman used the First Circuit’s language to find that denying citizenship under the new executive order would cause irreparable harm — one of the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction.
“The loss of birthright citizenship — even if temporary and later restored at the conclusion of litigation has cascading effects’ that will ‘very likely leave permanent scars’ on the child and their family,” the ruling stated.
Monica celebrated the preliminary injunction.
“During my pregnancy, I felt so much anxiety over the fact that my child could be born stateless,” Monica, said in a statement. “For now, my child and children like mine are protected and guaranteed U.S. citizenship. But I know this isn’t over. The threat to birthright citizenship is still out there. I’ll keep fighting for permanent protection for my child, and for every child born in this country.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“When it comes to attacking birthright citizenship, the Trump administration has lost before this court, lost before the Supreme Court, and lost again today,”Shana Khader, legal director at We Are CASA, said in a statement. “The White House must recognize it will not succeed in stripping children of their right to citizenship, evading binding court decisions or placing the president’s anti-immigrant agenda above the Constitution. We are very proud to continue this fight alongside the families who have endured more than a year of fear and uncertainty and still refuse to surrender their children’s constitutional rights.”
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复