The Trump administration’s effort to carry out its priorities through executive action collided with the federal judiciary on two separate fronts this week. In one case, a Biden-appointed judge blocked the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California’s policy allowing biological males to compete on girls’ sports teams. In another, a federal judge halted enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Taken together, the rulings underscore the legal obstacles standing between the administration and its policy goals.

Who is praying on the wall?

View Comments (0)

From the Daily Wire and The Epoch Times:

A federal judge on Sept. 2 blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to restrict birthright citizenship.

The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, granted immigrant rights advocates’ request for a preliminary injunction, which comes roughly two months after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s initial effort to end birthright citizenship.

“The President has tried, through Executive Order, to upend our country’s longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship and eliminate, for large swaths of Americans, the right to citizenship by birth, a right enshrined in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Boardman said in her Sept. 2 opinion.

Boardman’s decision blocks the federal government from interfering with the citizenship of children of unlawful or temporary foreign nationals. She also wrote that the executive order is “almost certainly unconstitutional” based on the Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling, which invalidated Trump’s first attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors.

Trump signed two executive orders about a month later. One, titled “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” sought to expand the definition of people ineligible for birthright citizenship, including “alien enemies of the United States, members of foreign terrorist organizations, and large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments,” according to Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser. The other order aimed to ban birth tourism, the practice of a foreign national traveling to the United States on a tourist visa to give birth so the child receives automatic U.S. citizenship. To crack down on the practice, the administration announced a Birth Tourism Prevention Task Force, which has revoked the visas of hundreds of foreign nationals accused of participating.

Immigrant groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, which had won a preliminary injunction from Boardman last year against Trump’s initial effort, again asked the judge to block the renewed order. The Justice Department argued the new directive was narrower than the sweeping 2025 version and applied only to specific categories the justices outlined, including babies born to terrorists or foreign government employees. Government lawyers also called the lawsuit premature, saying federal agencies had not yet issued guidance on how the directive would be carried out.

In the California case, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela blocked a July 2025 Justice Department lawsuit against the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation. The suit accused the state of violating Title IX by failing to keep boys who identify as transgender off girls’ sports teams. Valenzuela did not rule on whether California’s policies violate Title IX, but instead held that the state lacked clear notice that losing federal funding was the consequence of not changing its policies. In 2025, California’s Department of Education received about $44 billion in federal aid.

A Justice Department spokesman said officials are “disappointed by the Court’s order and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda of preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports.” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon suggested further action, telling people on X to “stay tuned.” Valenzuela also argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing states to keep sports teams separate on the basis of sex did not require every state to adopt the same rule.

These rulings raise deep questions for Christians about justice, protection, and the limits of human authority. Scripture teaches that God is the ultimate lawgiver and that human judges exercise authority under His sovereignty (Romans 13:1-2). When courts set aside policies intended to protect vulnerable children, safeguard girls’ privacy, and uphold the integrity of citizenship, believers are reminded that earthly law is imperfect and that no ruler or judge is beyond accountability. At the same time, Christians are called to pray for those in authority, including the judges who hold such weighty responsibility (1 Timothy 2:1-2). As these cases continue, the faithful have an opportunity to intercede for wisdom, justice, and the protection of the vulnerable.

Let us pray for President Trump and his administration as they pursue these policies, for the judges weighing these cases, and for the children and families affected by the outcomes. May God grant wisdom to those in authority, protect the vulnerable, and guide the nation toward justice that honors His truth. May the courts act in accordance with His righteous standards and uphold the dignity of every person.

How are you praying about this issue? Share your prayers and scriptures in the comments below.

(Excerpt from the Daily Wire and The Epoch Times. Photo Credit: Phil Roeder – Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32650356).