Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Roll Call
Roll Call
Chris Johnson

Challengers to Trump birthright citizenship order quickly try again - Roll Call

While the Trump administration cheered a Supreme Court victory Friday that rolled back the power of federal district court judges to issue the kind of nationwide orders that have paused his presidential orders, signs quickly emerged that court fights are far from settled.

In the decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the six-justice majority ruled that most courts could not issue the orders, sometimes called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions, that paused federal administrative action.

But experts pointed out that the decision left open other avenues where courts could block Trump administrative actions nationwide, on behalf of states, in class actions and where the suit challenges a federal rule.

The decision itself kicked off a race to the courthouse. Unless other courts intervene, the administration after 30 days may be able to move forward with the effort to end birthright citizenship in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order.

At a news conference Friday after the decision, Trump claimed the case ended a “grave threat to democracy” from judges who had ruled against him in the first few months of his term.

“I was elected on a historic mandate but in the last few months we have seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies they voted for,” Trump said.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised the decision during the press conference and said it “indirectly impacts every case in this country, and we’re thrilled with their decision today.”

There are more than 100 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, according to a tracker from the law firm Skadden. However, many of those involve class action claims or challenges based on the Administrative Procedure Act, legal avenues that were explicitly left outside of Friday’s decision.

Efforts to change existing litigation already started Friday as the ACLU filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court on behalf of several American parents whose children could lose immigration status through Trump’s order.

The complaint argued the litigation should represent all families impacted by the order nationwide, which are too numerous to join in the suit since the order would mean “more than two hundred thousand newborns will be unlawfully denied citizenship each year.”

“Denying citizenship to children being born every day throughout the country would have devastating impacts on Plaintiffs and on the United States as a whole,” the suit argued.

Skye Perryman, CEO of advocacy group Democracy Forward that has filed several of the lawsuits that sought nationwide injunctions, told reporters Friday that the White House had overstated how much the decision would restrict lower court judges.

“We are disappointed, obviously, in the ruling, but there is a nuance and a narrow scope that the White House sort of ignored in their presser,” Perryman told reporters.

Perryman pointed out that many of the more than 100 cases filed against the Trump administration involve class action claims or the Administrative Procedure Act that were separate from the decision Friday.

Jesse Panuccio, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and former associate attorney general in the first Trump administration, called the decision “seismic” for limiting the ability of single district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

While the opinion leaves open some avenues for courts to still issue nationwide injunctions, he said the decision should be read as a warning to lower courts.

“It’s hard to read this opinion as anything other than a pretty bracing message from the Supreme Court to the district courts,” Panuccio said. “And so even though they didn’t necessarily decide all those issues, I think they’re saying courts need to be real careful in their use of equitable relief.”

Adriel Orozco, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Council, pointed out that Friday’s decision only addressed the legality of the nationwide pause, not the legality of Trump’s underlying effort to limit birthright citizenship.

Orozco said that the avenue brought up by other experts, class actions, are “very burdensome” because of their cost and long time frame and can limit who is included. He said that depending on how the litigation proceeds, there could be children impacted by the order but not covered by a class action suit.

“So the fear here is that there are going to be thousands to millions of families that are going to be impacted that have kids and will not know whether or not the federal government is going to recognize their U.S. citizenship,” Orozco said.

State angles

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin argued the decision did not close off the possibility that states could still obtain nationwide injunctions against the federal government under some circumstances, since the Supreme Court left open that question for lower courts to deal with first. New Jersey is part of one of two coalitions of Democratic attorneys general who challenged the order.

In court, states have argued that many federal programs they administer depend on the citizenship status of state residents, and it would be impossible to handle if citizenship varied on state lines.

“We are very confident that we have met that standard, we are very confident that we will meet that standard when we go back to the district court,” Platkin said.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, part of the second coalition of states challenging the executive order, told reporters that his state would also continue the litigation.

“Time and time again he is undermining the rule of law, undermining state sovereignty, undermining the separation of powers and it is incumbent upon all of us to not capitulate in this moment, to not accept these changes that we are seeing from this president,” Brown said.

Jeremy Beck, co-president of NumbersUSA, which seeks to limit immigration, said his organization remains “very focused” in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on Congress passing legislation that would terminate birthright citizenship.

Beck said the decision allows the Trump administration to move forward with the executive order against birthright citizenship, but he pointed out that policy would be partial and tentative “because there are other ways to block it.”

“It’s only necessarily going to last until the next administration,” Beck said. “Since this is an executive order it’s not a law, it doesn’t have permanence. It’s not a lasting legislative initiative. So, to that end, our organization is still very much focused on getting legislation passed through Congress.”

Legislation currently pending before Congress that aims to restrict birthright citizenship is known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025. The legislation is sponsored in the House by Brian Babin, R-Texas, and in the Senate by Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Beck, when asked whether he thinks legislation would hold up in courts if they continue to rule against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, expressed uncertainty.

“We’ll just have to see,” Beck said. “We think that there’s a good case there to be made, but it’ll have to be argued in the court and the court will have to decide.”

The post Challengers to Trump birthright citizenship order quickly try again appeared first on Roll Call.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.