NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump‘s January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth.
While the justices’ 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday’s lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents.
UPENDING US BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WOULD HAVE DRASTIC NEGATIVE IMPACT, DEFENDERS WARN
President Donald Trump answers questions during a news conference on recent Supreme Court rulings Friday in the briefing room at the White House. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1.
Friday’s SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it’s absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings.
“The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”
“A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” she added.
President Donald Trump, joined by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, addresses recent Supreme Court rulings with members of the press in the briefing room at the White House Friday in Washington, D.C. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative.
“Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification,” Sotomayor wrote. “For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise to act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review.”
The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship “America’s most fundamental promise” and claims the executive order threatens to create “a permanent, multigenerational subclass” of children denied legal recognition.
“The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in the case.
Members of the media stand in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on the final day of this term on Friday. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history,” added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship.”
The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” It also references the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens.
The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S.
The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
“Trump’s executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights,” said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Today’s historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital.
“President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again.”
Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.