On a pivotal Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in rare circumstances, marking a significant legal victory for the Trump administration. This decision emerged alongside a fresh class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire federal court, which challenges Trump’s January executive order that alters the definition of birthright citizenship. The lawsuit claims the administration violates the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mothers lack lawful presence or their fathers are not citizens or lawful residents. This case, spearheaded by a coalition including the ACLU, aims to protect children affected by these definitions of citizenship and expand their legal recognition.
The recent ruling from the Supreme Court does not resolve the legality of Trump’s executive order but shifts the landscape for how birthright citizenship issues can be litigated. This case isn’t the first instance of legal opposition; earlier in January 2025, a similar lawsuit was filed by the same coalition, focusing on the potential impacts on expecting families potentially affected by the order. The earlier case achieved interim protections for certain members and is presently pending further review by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. The implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling mean that while challenges continue, the executive order may take effect in some regions, as it provided a 30-day period for lower courts to reassess their prior decisions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that the court’s authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 limits federal courts from granting sweeping universal injunctions. She clarified that the case primarily concerns the judicial remedy rather than the constitutional merits of the executive order regarding citizenship. Meanwhile, dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the potential for plaintiffs to pursue class-action lawsuits, underscoring the need for expedited legal remedies. Her comments implied that lower courts should act swiftly to adjudicate cases challenging the Citizenship Order due to its significant implications for affected families.
In their lawsuit, the ACLU characterized birthright citizenship as a cornerstone of American identity, arguing that the executive order risks creating a permanent subclass of children without proper legal recognition. Cody Wofsy, a key attorney with the ACLU, reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding citizenship rights, while Devon Chaffee, from the ACLU of New Hampshire, strongly criticized the order as unconstitutional and harmful. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit represent a diverse demographic, including families from countries like Honduras, Taiwan, and Brazil, some of whom express fear of losing citizenship rights for their U.S.-born children.
The lawsuit is rooted in the 14th Amendment, stating that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens, and referencing the landmark Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that affirmed these rights for U.S. born children of noncitizens. Highlighting the human impact of this legal battle, one New Hampshire mother is particularly anxious about the implications for her forthcoming child who may face citizenship denial despite being born in the U.S. This legal challenge, filed under the name Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., showcases the ongoing struggle over the interpretation and application of citizenship rights in contemporary socio-political discourse.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision and the lawsuit, White House spokesperson Liz Huston framed the ruling as a rejection of what she termed "weaponized lawfare" against President Trump. She reiterated the administration’s commitment to pursuing its America First agenda, asserting a focus on securing borders and addressing the broader issues surrounding birthright citizenship. The political narrative within the Trump administration maintains that it will continue to advocate for its interpretations of immigration law, while the contrasting legal efforts by groups like the ACLU position themselves at the forefront of advocating for civil rights and protections delineated by the Constitution. Overall, this unfolding legal landscape illustrates a contentious and evolving dialogue regarding citizenship in the United States.
