On January 21, 2025, a coalition of states, the District of Columbia, and the City and County of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over President Trump’s Executive Order depriving certain children born in the United States of birthright citizenship, which was initially set to go into effect on February 19, 2025. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
The order declares that a child who is born in the United States is not a citizen 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. Plaintiff states and localities allege that the order is unlawful, in violation of the Constitution and federal statute, and that allowing such an order to stand would harm both Plaintiff states and localities’ and their residents.
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that beyond the personal harms this order will inflict on impacted families and babies, the order will cause financial harms on Plaintiffs by impacting programs (e.g., Medicaid, CHIP) and federal funding Plaintiffs rely on to provide essential services to newborns and young children, in addition to causing administrative burdens on Plaintiffs in updating their internal systems to identify whether the individuals they serve are citizens or noncitizens.
On February 13, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive relief, blocking the government from implementing and enforcing the executive order. The federal government appealed.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, the First Circuit sent the case back to the district court to consider how the Supreme Court’s decision impacted the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction. The district court held that no narrower alternative to its injunction would provide the necessary protection for plaintiffs, and declined to modify the injunction.
Please refer to CASA v. Trump for the most current updates on the status of the birthright citizenship litigation.
Technical Summary:
Plaintiffs claim that the order violates: The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; the constitutional principle of separation of powers; federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1401; and is in violation of the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D)) as being “arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, [and] contrary to statute.”
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief in blocking defendants from implementing or enforcing the order, and vacatur of any actions in implementing or enforcing the order.
This case has been informally consolidated with another case raising the same claims, O. Doe v. Trump.
Latest Updates
- 07/25/2025
Full Timeline and Documents
- 01/21/2025
