Lawsuits Challenge Birthright Citizenship as Courts Block Trump’s Order

(UNITED STATES) Multiple states and civil rights groups moved ahead this year with a coordinated legal push to keep the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship intact, as federal courts continue to block an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present only temporarily.

As of October 16, 2025, courts have kept the order from taking effect, and children born on U.S. soil still receive citizenship at birth.

The lawsuits and legal claims

The lawsuits—filed within days of the executive order—argue it conflicts with the plain text of the Constitution and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent. Cases including CASA v. Trump and Barbara v. Trump challenge the order under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

• Plaintiffs assert that neither a president nor an agency can redefine citizenship by decree.
• Judges across several districts issued temporary and then broader injunctions, halting any federal action to apply the order while the cases proceed.

Advocacy groups filed amicus briefs warning the order would upend settled law and sow confusion for hospitals, state vital records offices, and families during the most sensitive moments after childbirth.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” — the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which advocates say leaves no room for an executive order to carve out groups of U.S.-born children.

Those briefs cautioned that undermining the clause would ripple into voting, national security, and identity-document systems, creating long-term uncertainty about who is a citizen.

Key court developments

• On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Trump v. CASA that limited how lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling did not uphold the executive order or disturb the underlying constitutional rule.
• Following that decision, lower courts adjusted their injunctions but continued to block the policy.
• By August 7, 2025, a new nationwide injunction and a certified class action again protected all potentially affected newborns, ensuring they receive recognition as U.S. citizens.

For now, the legal bottom line remains clear: as courts repeatedly held through the summer and fall, the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause continues to apply to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of a parent’s immigration status.

Judges emphasized the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed this rule more than a century ago, grounding it in both the text and the historical meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs’ filings also point to 1866 congressional debates showing lawmakers intended the clause to cover the children of immigrants, including those without legal status.

Constitutional framework and scholarly view

Historians and legal scholars widely agree the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to settle who is an American after the Civil War and to prevent future leaders from picking and choosing which U.S.-born children count as citizens.

• The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark held that this protection is automatic at birth, following the old English common-law principle of jus soli—citizenship by place of birth.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes that altering that rule through an executive order faces steep legal hurdles because constitutional rights cannot be narrowed by presidential directive.

Federal courts addressing the current lawsuits relied on this settled backdrop. Early orders found a strong likelihood that challengers would prevail, given the clear text and binding precedent. Judges also weighed the harms to families and states if hospitals and record offices began issuing birth certificates that do not confer citizenship, or if federal agencies refused to recognize those documents.

• Those harms would be immediate and widespread, affecting:
  • children’s Social Security numbers,
  • passports,
  • school enrollment,
  • future eligibility for work.

The Supreme Court’s procedural ruling in late June changed injunction mechanics but did not alter the constitutional analysis. Lower courts reissued relief within those limits, and at least one court certified a class to make sure all affected newborns are covered while the cases move forward.

As a result, the status quo remains: children born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth, and no agency is applying the January order.

Positions of the parties

• The administration defends the order as a measure to preserve “the meaning and value” of citizenship, arguing Congress never meant the Citizenship Clause to apply to children of parents who are present without permission or only briefly.
• Challengers argue the text and historical record say otherwise, and that only a constitutional amendment—or a Supreme Court reversal of Wong Kim Ark—could change the rule.
• Lower courts to date have sided with challengers, stating an executive order cannot override the Fourteenth Amendment.

Timeline of major events

1. Jan. 20, 2025: President Trump signs the order restricting birthright citizenship for certain U.S.-born children. Lawsuits are prepared immediately.
2. Jan. 21, 2025: Immigrant rights groups and several states file suits; courts begin issuing preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement.
3. Feb.–June 2025: Courts certify nationwide classes and maintain orders stopping any implementation.
4. June 27, 2025: The Supreme Court limits the scope of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA, without approving the substance of the order.
5. Aug. 7, 2025: A new nationwide injunction is issued, with a certified class ensuring coverage for all affected babies.
6. Oct. 2025: Litigation continues; lower courts consistently find the order unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a final ruling before July 2026.

Practical effects and guidance for families and officials

Courts and officials have taken steps to reduce disruption while litigation continues:

• Hospitals and county offices continue to issue birth certificates.
• Federal agencies continue to recognize those documents as proof of citizenship for U.S.-born children.
• Routine steps remain unchanged for parents: obtain a birth certificate, apply for a Social Security number, and, if needed, a U.S. passport.

Legal observers are watching whether the Supreme Court takes a direct case on the substance of the order rather than solely the scope of injunctions. Several cases present the core question: Can a president deny citizenship to a U.S.-born child based on a parent’s status? Given the weight of Wong Kim Ark and the original language of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocates for the plaintiffs say the answer is no.

The administration argues some noncitizen-parent categories fall outside “the jurisdiction” of the United States. Courts so far have rejected that reasoning.

Wider implications if policy were to take effect

If some U.S.-born children were found not to be citizens, the consequences would be large and varied:

• Barriers to school enrollment and health coverage for affected children
• Increased administrative burdens and uneven treatment across counties and hospitals
• New I-9 and employment verification complications for employers
• Risks of statelessness and travel complications if children cannot obtain U.S. passports

VisaVerge.com reports such a shift would complicate travel and could leave children without citizenship if no other country recognizes them.

Practical tips to protect records (while the law remains unchanged)

• Keep copies of hospital records, state-issued birth certificates, and Social Security letters in a safe place.
• If a document is delayed, request written confirmation of processing from the issuing office.
• Families traveling abroad soon after birth should apply for a passport early and carry the child’s birth certificate and any consular letters when returning to the United States.
• Immigration attorneys recommend maintaining a simple file with proof of residence and identity to avoid delays if an agency requests routine verification.

Where to read the governing text

For readers wanting to see the governing text, the National Archives hosts the Fourteenth Amendment in full, including the Citizenship Clause. You can read it at the National Archives page on the Fourteenth Amendment: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment.

That clause, echoed by more than a century of case law, has underpinned how Americans think about belonging and equal status since 1868.

Who’s involved and what’s next

Advocacy coalitions behind the lawsuits include immigrant rights groups, civic organizations, and several states. Their filings warn the order would encourage profiling in hospitals, create unequal treatment across counties, and make the Constitution’s promise depend on location.

Supporters of the order say it would deter misuse of U.S. citizenship and reflect a narrower interpretation of the clause. Courts will weigh those competing claims in full briefing and oral arguments through the next terms.

Both sides are preparing for a final Supreme Court ruling expected before July 2026. Until then, attorneys say parents can rely on current law: courts have kept the executive order on hold, and judges have certified classes to protect all affected children, including those born to parents who are undocumented or here temporarily.

In legal filings and courtrooms across the country, the central question remains the same as in 1898: whether the Constitution’s promise of birthright citizenship covers every child born on U.S. soil. For now, and for the foreseeable future while the cases proceed, that promise stands.