Immigrant advocates file new lawsuit against Trump’s birthright executive order

permissible avenue for broader protection.The executive order, signed by Trump on January 20, 2025, aims to withhold citizenship from children born to undocumented immigrants or individuals with temporary legal status. With a significant number of children born each week to noncitizen parents, the plaintiffs argue that only a class-wide intervention can prevent the government from violating their constitutional rights.

The organizations behind the lawsuit, CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), submitted their legal challenge in response to Trump’s executive order abolishing birthright citizenship. This move is seen as a direct response to the divisive immigration policies put in place by the Trump administration.The objective of the lawsuit is to challenge the constitutionality of the order and protect the rights of children born in the United States to noncitizen parents.

According to the amended complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, the plaintiffs are seeking class certification to represent all children born in the US after February 19, 2025, whose parents are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents. These individuals were excluded from acquiring citizenship under the terms of the executive order.The lawsuit contends that Trump’s directive directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, established Supreme Court precedent, and federal law (8 USC § 1401), all of which mandate birthright citizenship to individuals born on US soil, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.

By referencing the influential 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the complaint asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment provides citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the US, with only a few exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers. This principle was later enshrined in federal legislation.As the plaintiffs argued in their motion for a temporary restraining order, without a class-wide injunction, the government’s actions would deprive thousands of infants within the envisioned class of their legal right to US citizenship.

The amended complaint was submitted in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that constrained the authority of lower courts to issue universal injunctions that block federal policies. In writing for the majority in Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett stressed that such relief should typically be confined to the individual plaintiffs, unless pursued through lawful class actions. On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented vehemently, cautioning that restricting judicial remedies could render constitutional guarantees ineffectual for individuals not involved in a lawsuit.

Acknowledging this legal shift, the plaintiffs are now urging the federal court in Maryland to grant emergency class-wide injunctive relief, an approach explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court as a viable means of extending broader protection.The executive order signed by Trump on January 20, 2025, is purportedly designed to withhold citizenship from children born to undocumented immigrants or individuals with temporary legal status. Given the number of children born each week to noncitizen parents, the plaintiffs argue that only a class-wide intervention can prevent the government from violating their constitutional rights.