In a rapid response to the recent judicial pause of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end Birthright Citizenship, a second judge has now blocked the policy from implementation.

The U.S. Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Such persons “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

However, Trump’s order, titled PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, contends that persons born in the U.S. of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore not entitled to citizenship by virtue of their birth on American soil.

US District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled against Trump’s day-one order to end Birthright Citizenship after the order was met with significant legal challenges by a judge who paused his policy.

Judge Boardman said that the president’s order to end Birthright Citizenship is unconstitutional.

The speedy timeline of legal events in regard to the executive order to end Birthright Citizenship includes two judges pausing the order.

The first pause occurred immediately after the President announced the order, two weeks ago, with a preliminary injunction in Washington. At the time, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour’s nationwide preliminary injunction placed a 14-day temporary restraining order against the Trump policy.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Coughenour said at the time. “In this courtroom, and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow.”

This second order from Judge Boardman, announced on February 5, is an indefinite pause, and not a 14-day temporary order.

In her decision, the judge wrote that the executive order “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” Specifically, she noted that Trump’s order is the opposite of the clear language of the 14th amendment, section 1.

In a hearing on January 5, the judge said that the Trump executive order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent and runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” She continued, “No court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”

In granting the injunction, Judge Boardman noted that the “government will not be harmed by a preliminary injunction that prevents it from enforcing an executive order likely to be found unconstitutional.”

When deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts must consider whether the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction, whether the injunction would substantially injure others, and whether the injunction furthers the public interest.

The immediate protest against Trump’s executive order was brought by two nonprofit immigration groups and five Maryland women, all pregnant. In their legal document, the women said their babies could be negatively affected by the new order.

Judge Boardman agreed with the five pregnant women and said that the injunction to stop the order must apply nationwide so that there would be “vast relief” for the large numbers of people who would be affected by the order.

The injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit against the executive order advances. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, and experts say they expect this case will eventually be heard by The Supreme Court.