Birthright Citizenship Lawsuit: Trump v. Barbara at the Supreme Court

The birthright citizenship lawsuit known as Trump v. Barbara is a class action that has kept President Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to certain U.S.-born children from ever taking effect. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in June 2025 and now before the Supreme Court, the case was argued on April 1, 2026, with a merits decision expected by late June or early July 2026.¹ As of mid-2026, births in the United States continue to confer citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment as they have for more than 150 years.²

The Executive Order That Started the Lawsuit

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It directed federal agencies to stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for two groups of children born on American soil after February 19, 2025: children whose mothers were unlawfully present and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and children whose mothers were in the country on temporary legal status (student, work, or tourist visas) with fathers who likewise were not citizens or permanent residents.³ Children with at least one citizen or lawful permanent resident parent were not affected.

The order told the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security to align their regulations with the new policy and issue public guidance within 30 days.⁴⁵⁶

How Barbara v. Trump Was Filed

The lawsuit exists in its current form because of an earlier Supreme Court ruling. Several district courts had blocked the executive order with universal, nationwide injunctions. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts likely lack authority to issue those universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the modern descendant of the old equitable “bill of peace” is the class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, not a blanket ban on enforcement against everyone.⁷⁸ The CASA decision did not touch the constitutional question. It only limited the remedy.

Challengers adapted the same day. On June 27, 2025, the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, the Democracy Defenders Fund, and other organizations filed a new suit in the District of New Hampshire on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order and their parents. The case was styled Barbara v. Trump, with plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms.⁹¹⁰

Judge Laplante’s July 2025 Ruling

On July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled from the bench. He granted provisional class certification and issued a preliminary injunction, calling the constitutional question “not a close call.”¹¹ The class was defined as all children born on or after February 20, 2025, whose parents fell into the categories targeted by the executive order. Judge Laplante narrowed the class to include only the infants, rejecting the request to also include parents.¹²

On the merits, Judge Laplante rejected the government’s argument that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment requires domicile. He cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as binding authority and noted that every other federal court to address the issue had reached the same conclusion.¹³ He described deprivation of citizenship as “irreparable harm,” calling citizenship “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”¹² He acknowledged the government’s arguments were not “frivolous” but found them “unpersuasive.”¹¹

Judge Laplante had been reluctant to issue a nationwide injunction before CASA. He explained the distinction directly: “I wasn’t a judge that was comfortable with a national injunction. But class action is different.”¹² The injunction was stayed for seven days so the government could appeal.

The Case Reaches the Supreme Court

The government petitioned for Supreme Court review on September 26, 2025. On December 5, 2025, the Court granted certiorari before judgment in Trump v. Barbara and the parallel state challenge Trump v. Washington, agreeing to decide the constitutional question during the October 2025 term.¹¹⁴ Oral arguments were heard on April 1, 2026. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the government; Cecillia D. Wang argued for the respondents.

The Government’s Argument

Sauer told the Court that the Citizenship Clause was intended to overrule Dred Scott and secure citizenship for freed slaves, who he said possessed allegiance to the United States based on “domicile.” He contended that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “owing direct and immediate allegiance” rather than merely being subject to American laws, and that people in the country illegally lack the legal capacity to establish domicile. He also argued that birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrants creates a “pull factor” for illegal immigration and “birth tourism.”¹⁵ Sauer conceded the administration was not asking the Court to overrule Wong Kim Ark, though his proposed reading would sharply narrow it.¹⁶

How the Justices Responded

Several justices pressed the government’s position. Justice Kagan questioned the textual basis for Sauer’s definition of “jurisdiction,” noting the standard reading is simply “subject to the authority of” the United States. Justice Gorsuch observed that the original congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment contain no references to parents or domicile, which he called “striking.” Justice Jackson warned that the government’s theory would let Congress define citizenship by controlling who may hold lawful immigration status. Justice Sotomayor pressed Sauer on whether his reasoning could allow the government to retroactively strip citizenship from people already recognized as citizens, a question he struggled to answer.¹⁵¹⁶

Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the world has changed since 1868 but noted that “we have the same Constitution.” Justice Kavanaugh suggested the Court could resolve the case with a “fairly short opinion” if it accepted that Wong Kim Ark controls.¹⁶ Wang, for the respondents, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship test is essentially identical in meaning to the 1866 Civil Rights Act and defended the established reading that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship to nearly everyone.¹⁷

The Constitutional Question at the Core of the Case

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The amendment was adopted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision and secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people.¹⁸

The controlling Supreme Court precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese citizen parents. After he traveled abroad, the government tried to bar his re-entry, arguing he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6–2 ruling, the Court held that a child born in the United States to parents who are domiciled residents (and who are not diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force) is automatically a citizen. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion rooted the clause in English common law, under which birth within the sovereign’s territory conferred allegiance and citizenship.¹⁹²⁰ For over a century, Wong Kim Ark has been read to mean that virtually all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Who Would Be Affected If the Order Takes Effect

Pew Research Center estimated that roughly 260,000 babies born in 2023 would not have qualified for citizenship under the order had it been in effect that year. About 245,000 were born to mothers who were unauthorized immigrants, and about 15,000 were born to mothers on temporary legal status, in each case with fathers who were neither citizens nor permanent residents.²¹ The Migration Policy Institute projected that if the policy were permanently adopted, an average of about 255,000 children per year would be born on U.S. soil without citizenship over the next 50 years, swelling the unauthorized population by 5.4 million by 2075.²²

For affected children, the consequences would be severe. Without recognized citizenship, they would be unable to obtain U.S. passports or Social Security numbers and would lose eligibility for federal programs including Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP.²³ As they grew older, they could be barred from voting, serving on juries, and holding certain jobs. Depending on their parents’ home countries, some could be rendered stateless.²⁴

Current Status

Executive Order 14160 has never taken effect. The preliminary injunction from Barbara v. Trump remains in force, and the class it protects covers all children born on or after February 20, 2025, whose parents fall within the order’s targeted categories. The Supreme Court has not yet issued its merits decision, though SCOTUSblog and other observers reported after oral argument that a majority of the justices appeared likely to rule against the administration.¹⁶ The ruling is expected by late June or early July 2026.²⁵

Until the Supreme Court rules, births in the United States continue to confer citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. If you or a family member had a child born after February 19, 2025, and your circumstances match the categories in the order, the Barbara class certification means that child is currently protected from the order’s enforcement. The final answer to whether that protection becomes permanent, or whether the administration’s reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause survives at all, will come with the Court’s decision.

1
SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Barbara
2
SCOTUSblog. The Key Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case
3
The White House. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
4
Federal Register. Executive Order 14160
5
Social Security Administration. SSA Guidance Document – EO 14160
6
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS Implementation Plan of Executive Order 14160
7
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case
8
U.S. Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831
9
Justice Action Center Litigation Tracker. Barbara v. Trump – Birthright EO Class Action District Court
10
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Barbara v. Trump
11
PBS NewsHour. Judge in New Hampshire to Pause Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan, Certify Class Action Lawsuit
12
Maine Morning Star. NH Judge Blocks Trump Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship, Grants Class Action Status
13
FindLaw. Barbara v. Trump, D.N.H. 2025
14
SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Washington
15
U.S. Supreme Court. Oral Argument Transcript, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365
16
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship
17
SCOTUSblog. Birthright Citizenship Oral Argument Highlights
18
U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual. 8 FAM 010203 – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship at Birth
19
National Constitution Center. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
20
Justia. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
21
Pew Research Center. About 9% of U.S. Births in 2023 Were to Unauthorized or Temporary Legal Immigrant Mothers
22
Migration Policy Institute. Birthright Citizenship Repeal Projections
23
NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Know Your Rights – Birthright Citizenship
24
Asian Law Caucus. Know Your Rights – Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
25
ACLU. Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order