A federal judge is preparing to hear arguments concerning President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at terminating birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented parents in the U.S.

This executive order has sparked significant legal challenges, with 22 states and various organizations filing lawsuits, asserting that it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Coughenour, who has described the case as one of the clearest he has encountered in his 40 years on the bench, will consider whether to extend a temporary injunction similar to one previously issued by a Maryland judge.

During his first week in office, Trump signed multiple executive orders related to immigration, which have faced various legal challenges and heightened anxiety within immigrant communities.

Contrary to Trump's assertions, birthright citizenship is a principle recognized in many countries, including Canada and Mexico, and has been a longstanding aspect of U.S. law for over 250 years.

Plaintiffs have expressed concerns about the implications of the executive order on their children's citizenship rights, with one expecting mother fearing her future child could become stateless.

While executive orders allow the President to govern without Congressional approval, they are subject to legal challenges and can be reversed by future administrations.

Legal experts agree that any attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, a process that is extremely challenging and requires broad support.

The Maryland injunction provides longer-term relief compared to an earlier 14-day pause ordered by Coughenour, which was issued on January 23, 2025.

The Justice Department has the option to appeal the Maryland injunction to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, although no decision has been made regarding this appeal.

The White House is expected to appeal the ruling, which could ultimately lead to a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Boardman, who issued the Maryland injunction, emphasized the necessity of a nationwide injunction to ensure complete relief for the plaintiffs, which include immigrant-rights groups and expectant mothers.