CASA v. Trump (Birthright EO) - District Court

This case was brought by CASA and ASAP (immigrants’ rights organizations) and five pregnant women to challenge President Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States if, at the time of the child’s birth, (1) their mother was either “unlawfully present in the United States” or the “mother’s presence in the United States . . . was lawful but temporary” and (2) their father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Plaintiffs allege the executive order is not authorized by statute or the Fourteenth Amendment.

On February 5, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, blocking implementation and enforcement of the executive order.

On February 11, the government appealed the preliminary injunction order and sought a stay pending appeal from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which the 4th Circuit denied on February 28, 2025. On March 13, the government appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a partial stay of the district court's injunctions in this case, in State of Washington v. Trump, and in State of New Jersey v. Trump. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court—ruling 6-3 that “[u]niversal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts”—granted the government’s application for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” Additionally, the Supreme Court left open the avenue of pursuing injunctive relief on behalf of a class (rather than “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions).

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling, on June 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, a motion to certify a class on behalf of “all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents,” and an emergency temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”). 

On July 17, after briefing on the motions was completed, the court issued an indicative ruling (a preliminary decision made by a lower court that indicates how it would rule) on the PI motion that if the Fourth Circuit were to remand to allow the court to decide the motion, it would grant it. The district court did this because nearly every aspect of the motion is on appeal before the Fourth Circuit, so the district court does not think it has the authority to decide it while the appeal is proceeding. The court also held the motion in abeyance (temporarily suspended) until the Fourth Circuit issues further direction.