(CALIFORNIA) — California Attorney General Rob Bonta is co-leading a multistate coalition challenging President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed January 20, 2025, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and certain non-citizens.
Multiple federal courts have blocked the order nationwide under preliminary injunctions, including in cases such as Trump v. Barbara and Trump v. Washington, keeping the policy from taking effect while litigation continues.
“Birthright citizenship is a right, and President Trump cannot undo that by fiat,” Bonta said.
Oral arguments are scheduled for April 1, 2026, with a decision expected by late June or early July, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in early December 2025.
Bonta’s coalition includes 24 attorneys general, including Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and New York Attorney General Letitia James, plus the City and County of San Francisco.
The coalition moved quickly after the order’s issuance, filing lawsuits and supporting repeated efforts to halt enforcement, with courts issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions that preserve the status quo while judges consider whether the order can stand.
Executive Order 14160 seeks to change how the government recognizes citizenship for certain children born in the United States, targeting U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and certain non-citizens.
State challengers and other plaintiffs argue the order conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration law, and they have pointed to the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.
Preliminary injunctions, including nationwide ones, have prevented the federal government from enforcing the order while courts weigh the merits, meaning the order has not taken effect and agencies cannot implement it anywhere in the country.
Nationwide relief has become a central feature of the litigation, with courts stopping enforcement across state lines rather than limiting the effect of an injunction to only the named plaintiffs, in part because the challenged policy would otherwise affect newborns and families in many states at once.
In Trump v. Barbara and Trump v. Washington, courts issued early rulings that helped shape the path to Supreme Court review, and litigation in multiple jurisdictions has kept the order blocked.
Bonta’s coalition has combined direct challenges with support filings, including amicus briefs, to press the argument that the order violates both the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The coalition filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara, urging the Supreme Court to strike down the order under the Citizenship Clause and the INA.
California and other states have argued they face administrative burdens tied to benefits systems and documentation if birthright citizenship standards change, and they have warned of additional costs tied to verifying eligibility for services.
Bonta’s office has framed the coalition’s role as both legal and practical, saying states would have to manage the ripple effects across public programs and recordkeeping if the federal government denied citizenship to some U.S.-born children.
In California, an estimated 24,500 children are born annually to parents affected by the order, including undocumented immigrants, temporary visa holders, DACA/TPS recipients, and asylum seekers, according to the information advanced by the state.
California has argued those children would face risks including statelessness, deportation threats, and loss of rights, while state agencies could confront new administrative demands over documentation and eligibility.
The coalition has also pointed to potential impacts on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as well as foster care, while warning of added administrative costs and funding cuts.
The Supreme Court’s review will unfold while the injunctions remain in place, meaning the legal status quo continues through the spring.
As of February 2026, the executive order remains blocked by injunctions and has not taken effect.
The coalition’s Supreme Court arguments track a core constitutional dispute: whether the Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, with only narrow exceptions, or whether the clause allows limits tied to the legal status of a child’s parents.
Challengers have relied on what they describe as the settled meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing it covers people who must obey U.S. law, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
Central to the challengers’ case is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen Chinese parents is a citizen.
Justice Horace Gray wrote that the case upheld the “ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.”
The litigation has also forced courts to grapple with competing readings of Wong Kim Ark, including arguments about whether the precedent can be narrowed based on the circumstances of the parents in that case.
The Trump administration has argued the Citizenship Clause targeted freed slaves, not children of “illegal aliens” or temporary visitors, and it has sought to distinguish Wong Kim Ark on the grounds that those parents resided permanently.
The timeline that brought the dispute to the Supreme Court began immediately after Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, his first day.
On January 21, 2025, ASAP/CASA sued in the District of Maryland, and multistate suits were filed.
A Maryland judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on February 5, 2025, covering ASAP members and immigrants.
Class certification expanded protection on February 19-20, 2025, extending relief to all affected U.S.-born babies after that date.
The Supreme Court limited the initial injunction on June 27, 2025, and a new class action was filed the same day.
A Maryland judge certified a nationwide class and issued an injunction on August 7, 2025, protecting all babies.
Trump petitioned the Supreme Court in late September 2025.
The Supreme Court granted review in early December 2025, and the 9th Circuit, in Trump v. Washington, ruled the order invalid under the 14th Amendment’s plain text.
The litigation has moved on multiple tracks at once, with class actions playing a central role in defining the scope of protection while courts consider the broader legality of Executive Order 14160.
Class-wide relief has mattered because it can protect people beyond the original named plaintiffs, and in this dispute it has been used to extend nationwide coverage to babies who would otherwise face differing treatment depending on where a lawsuit was filed.
One of the most prominent related cases, ASAP/CASA v. Trump in the District of Maryland, produced the first preliminary injunction and later became a class action protecting all post-February 19, 2025, U.S.-born babies unless one parent is a U.S. citizen, national, LPR, asylee, refugee, etc.
Civil-rights and legal organizations have also joined the litigation, including NAACP LDF and the ACLU, which joined the Trump v. Barbara class action on behalf of affected children.
In Barbara v. Trump in New Hampshire district court, a preliminary injunction bars enforcement against a class of babies born on/after February 20, 2025.
With the order blocked nationwide, the dispute now centers on what the Supreme Court does with a policy that touches constitutional text, an 1898 precedent, and the federal government’s authority over immigration and citizenship recognition.
The coalition supporting the challenge has told the court the INA reinforces the constitutional guarantee, and it has urged the justices to keep in place a longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship.
The justices’ decision, expected by late June or early July, stands to determine whether Executive Order 14160 can take effect or remains unenforceable under the Constitution and federal law.
As of February 2026, Executive Order 14160 has not taken effect due to injunctions, and the next major procedural milestone on the calendar is April 1, 2026, when the Supreme Court hears arguments.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta Defends Birthright Citizenship Under Executive Order 14160
California’s Attorney General and a multistate coalition are legally challenging a federal executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. Currently stalled by nationwide injunctions, the case centers on the 14th Amendment and the landmark 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in April 2026, determining the future of citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants born on American soil.
