The SCOTUS Ruling You Need to Know: Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA. The Court did not decide the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which targets birthright citizenship, but instead limited the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

What Is the Background on the Executive Order and the Litigation?

Under the 14^th Amendment, the United States acknowledges “birthright citizenship” – unless a person born physically in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, that person is automatically a citizen at birth. Since the late 1800s, this has been interpreted to include the children of even undocumented immigrants. The Executive Order at the center of the case seeks to limit birthright citizenship by redefining who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. It declares it the official policy of the United States to deny or withhold documentation of citizenship in two specific circumstances: (1) when a person’s mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. at the time of birth and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident, and (2) when a person’s mother was lawfully in the U.S. but only on a temporary basis, and again, the father lacked U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence. The order included a 30-day “ramp-up” period to allow federal agencies time to develop and publish implementation guidance before the order would take effect. In response to this policy, multiple states and organizations filed lawsuits to prevent the Executive Order from taking effect. Three federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily blocking the Executive Order from taking effect anywhere in the country while litigation proceeded. Even though only 22 states sued to challenge the legality of the Executive Order, the federal district courts ordered that the federal government could not apply the new policy anywhere in the United States. The Trump Administration challenged the legality of those broad injunctions, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision.

What Did the Court Decide?

District courts can no longer block federal policies with nationwide “universal” injunctions. They may only block it to the extent needed to remedy plaintiffs in their own cases. The Executive Order remains temporarily blocked nationwide for 30 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (approximately until July 27, 2025) to give lower courts time to revise injunctions under this new standard. The Court did not rule on whether the Executive Order violates the Constitution.

Who’s Protected? Who’s Vulnerable?

Still protected: The 22 states and the District of Columbia that filed suit and obtained tailored injunctions remain protected. These include:

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• District of Columbia

In these jurisdictions, the Executive Order should remain blocked while the lawsuit is ongoing, meaning that babies born there continue to receive birthright citizenship, for now.

• Vulnerable Group:

The 28 other states and U.S. territories, who were not part of the groups that sued in the three lawsuits challenging the policy, are now exposed to the Executive Order’s implementation starting July 27, 2025, unless new statewide or class-action injunctions are issued.

What Happens Over the Next 30 Days?

Lower courts must modify current injunctions to apply only to the named plaintiffs. Courts will also evaluate whether these plaintiffs are entitled to broader statewide or class-wide relief. New class-action lawsuits (including those led by CASA and ACLU) have already been filed to extend protection nationwide. The federal government is expected to issue implementation guidance, including how hospitals and agencies will assess eligibility, though details remain scarce.

Advice for Clients

• Expect patchwork enforcement: Where your child is born this summer may affect their citizenship status.
• For expecting parents in unprotected states: Strongly consider joining or filing a class-action lawsuit. Timing is critical.
• Watch for state-level action: Some state attorneys general may seek protective injunctions before July 27, 2025.
• Update birth plans: If feasible, giving birth in one of the protected jurisdictions can help secure citizenship.
• Monitor future rulings: The constitutional question could still return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Final Take

This Supreme Court ruling does not eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but it does dismantle the nationwide legal shield that previously protected it. The result is a fragmented system, where access to citizenship now depends on geography and litigation posture. For expecting parents, timing and location are more important than ever. This decision also highlights the critical role of class-action lawsuits and state-level advocacy in preserving constitutional protections.

Additionally, the Executive Order does not affect the citizenship of individuals who have already been born and recognized as U.S. citizens. It also does not apply to children born to:

• A U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) parent, regardless of the other parent’s status, or
• A mother who holds a non-temporary lawful immigration status in the United States.

If you have any additional questions, do not hesitate to contact our office at (312) 427-6163 or schedule a consultation online.