Demonstrators hold a sign reading “Hands Off Birthright Citizenship!” outside the Supreme Court on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court did not rule on President Trump’s controversial executive order, but it did limit lower courts’ ability to block executive actions with universal injunctions.
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn’t rule on the legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who “have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025,” according to court documents.
One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach “we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order.”
The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue “a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class,” Powell said.
In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump’s effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, “would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country.”
“The Executive Order threatens these newborns’ identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth,” reads the complaint.
Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”
But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump’s order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. President Trump hailed the court ruling as a significant win for the Constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law during a briefing at the White House. He expressed that the decision allows his administration to proceed with efforts to alter long-standing U.S. policies on immigration and citizenship.
Following the ruling, there are concerns about the implications for the dispute over birthright citizenship and how it may impact future challenges to executive policies. The limitation on nationwide injunctions raised by the ruling has sparked debate, with some arguing it could enable the president to act unlawfully.
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of Trump’s executive order, there is anticipation for further legal proceedings. The Attorney General declined to comment on the implementation and enforcement of the order, citing pending litigation and expecting the Supreme Court to address the issue in the upcoming months.
Despite disappointment with the ruling on nationwide injunctions, there is confidence that the Supreme Court will address Trump’s stance on birthright citizenship. Critics argue that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantee birthright citizenship to almost all individuals born in the U.S.
The court’s decision mandates a 30-day timeframe for the implementation of the policy outlined in the executive order. The ruling underscores concerns about the Judiciary Act’s authority and discusses the distinction between complete and universal relief in the majority opinion.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent raises questions about the application of constitutional rights to individuals not involved in lawsuits. The concept of birthright citizenship traces back to English common law principles and the 14th Amendment, which established citizenship for those born or naturalized in the U.S.
Legal experts emphasize that any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through an executive order remains unconstitutional. The ruling does not weaken the constitutional basis for birthright citizenship but rather affects the court’s ability to enforce it effectively.
