In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that district courts must limit the scope of their preliminary injunctions blocking President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order (EO) on birthright citizenship. The Court ordered that the injunctions apply only to the specific individuals, organizations, and states named as plaintiffs in the lawsuits, rather than nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- The challenged EO would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one biological parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- With this ruling, the federal government may implement the EO with respect to non-parties beginning 30 days from the decision date—barring further court orders.
- The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the EO itself, as that issue is still pending before the lower courts.
- The case at the center of this decision is Trump v. CASA Inc., et al.
Legal Background
President Trump’s EO marks a sharp departure from over a century of legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has granted U.S. citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status. The EO excludes children born after February 19, 2025, unless at least one biological parent is a U.S. citizen or green card holder. It applies even to parents in valid nonimmigrant statuses (e.g., H-1B, F-1, B-2), with no exception for those pursuing lawful permanent residency.
The EO prompted multiple lawsuits, including:
- CASA Inc. et al. v. Trump, Case No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md.)
- State of Washington et al. v. Trump, Case No. 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash.)
- State of New Jersey et al. v. Trump, Case No. 25-cv-10139 (D. Mass.)
District courts in these cases issued nationwide injunctions halting implementation of the EO. The Trump Administration appealed, asking that injunctions be limited to only the parties involved. When appellate courts denied that request, the Supreme Court intervened—addressing the scope of judicial authority, not the merits of the EO.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision in Trump v. CASA Inc. has both immediate and long-term consequences:
- Implementation of the Executive Order: Unless further blocked, the EO will go into effect for all individuals not party to the litigation beginning in late July 2025. This could affect thousands of families whose children are born to noncitizen, nonresident parents.
- Impact on Future Injunctions: The ruling limits the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, a common legal tool used in recent years to halt executive policies pending judicial review. This shift could make it harder for challengers to obtain broad relief unless they pursue class action litigation or coordinate suits across multiple jurisdictions.
- Ongoing Constitutional Challenge: The central legal question—whether the EO violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment—remains unresolved. The district court cases are expected to proceed, with appeals likely regardless of the outcomes. The issue may ultimately return to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the merits.
- Administrative Guidance Anticipated: In the wake of the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are expected to issue guidance on how the EO will be implemented. This may involve changes to procedures for issuing U.S. passports, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, and other immigration-related documentation.
Challenging States and Jurisdictions
Plaintiff states 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, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and City of San Francisco.
Next Steps
Legal proceedings on the underlying constitutional question—whether the EO violates the 14th Amendment—are ongoing. Further litigation and possible future Supreme Court review are expected. Meanwhile, the federal government may move forward with implementation for non-parties, unless new injunctions or rulings emerge.
HSD Immigration Lawyer will continue to monitor this evolving issue and provide updates as developments occur.
If you have any questions about this update, please contact one of our offices in Chicago, IL, Naperville, IL, Raleigh, NC, or Clark, NJ, for guidance.
At HSD Immigration Lawyer, we specialize in complex employment-, investment- and family-based immigration matters.