Live Immigration Lawsuit Tracker: Birthright Citizenship, Visa Ban

Trump immigration lawsuits now span nearly every major enforcement and visa policy issued since January 2025, with at least 75 active federal cases being tracked by litigation monitors, four major disputes pending before the Supreme Court, and more than 10,000 lower-court rulings against the administration’s mandatory detention practices alone.¹² Below is where the biggest cases stand as of mid-2026, grouped by the policy they challenge.

Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court

The marquee case is Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), challenging the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office denying automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country temporarily or without legal status. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states sued immediately.³

District courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington blocked the order with nationwide injunctions, and the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits refused to lift them.⁴ Then, in June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that lower federal courts could not issue universal injunctions against presidential orders, letting the birthright order take effect while litigation continued.³

The merits reached the Court through Barbara v. Trump, a class action a district judge had found likely unconstitutional. Oral arguments were held April 1, 2026. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh pushed back on the government’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. When the Solicitor General argued the Constitution should be reinterpreted for modern circumstances, Roberts replied, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”⁵ SCOTUSblog’s analysis suggested the Court appeared likely to rule against the administration. No decision had issued as of June 2026.⁶

Alien Enemies Act Deportations

In March 2025, Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apprehend and remove Venezuelan nationals accused of ties to the gang Tren de Aragua. The statute had historically been used only in wartime.⁴

The lead challenge, W.M.M. v. Trump, is in the Fifth Circuit. A three-judge panel ruled in September 2025 that the Act had been “improperly invoked outside of war and in the absence of a military attack.”⁷ The full court agreed to rehear the case en banc on January 22, 2026, with the Brennan Center and the Cato Institute among those filing briefs against the proclamation.⁸ No en banc ruling has been reported.

The Supreme Court has already addressed procedural pieces of these cases, finding affected immigrants were not given sufficient notice before deportation, while leaving the proclamation’s underlying legality for the lower courts.⁹

Other Immigration Cases Pending at the Supreme Court

Three more immigration disputes were argued during the 2025–2026 term and remain undecided:

Noem v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5) asks whether asylum seekers must physically cross the U.S. border to apply for asylum, or whether presenting themselves at a port of entry is enough. The case grew out of the earlier “metering” policy. Argued March 24, 2026, oral argument reporting suggests a majority of justices lean toward the administration’s reading that “arrives in” requires physical presence inside the country.¹⁰
Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429), originally Bondi v. Lau, asks whether the government must have clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying criminal offense at the moment a lawful permanent resident reenters the U.S. in order to treat the person as an “arriving applicant” subject to removal. Argued April 22, 2026.¹¹
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (No. 24-777), argued in December 2025, asks whether federal appeals courts must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals on persecution findings or may review them independently.¹²

Mandatory Detention and the 10,000 Rulings Against ICE

No single policy has produced more litigation than mandatory detention. In July 2025, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons issued a memo reclassifying millions of long-term U.S. residents as “applicants for admission,” a legal designation that triggers mandatory detention with no bond hearing.²

By February 2026, a Reuters investigation counted more than 4,400 rulings that ICE was detaining people illegally under the policy, from more than 400 different judges. A Politico analysis in May 2026 put the total above 10,400 adverse rulings, with judges siding against the government in roughly 90% of cases and more than 425 judges participating, including many Trump appointees.²

Politico also reported that ICE has repeatedly defied or worked around the resulting orders: moving detainees to different states to force new litigation, offering hearings judges found insufficient, “ghosting” its own DOJ attorneys, and in some instances deporting people in direct violation of court orders.² The ICE detention population reached about 68,000 by February 2026, a 75% increase since Trump took office, and 700 DOJ lawyers were assigned to the resulting habeas cases, some handling more than 1,000 civil suits each.¹³

Federal judges have been pointed. U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III wrote that “despite hundreds of similar rulings resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners, ICE continues to act contrary to law.” Judge Gary Brown wrote, “This isn’t how things are supposed to work in America.”² The circuits are split: the Fifth and Eighth have sided with the government, the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh have ruled against it, and the Seventh is deadlocked, making Supreme Court review likely.

Warrantless Arrests and Racial Profiling

A cluster of class actions challenges how federal agents are conducting immigration arrests on the ground, alleging reliance on racial profiling and absence of probable cause.

Washington, D.C.

In Escobar-Molina v. DHS, four D.C. residents and CASA alleged ICE agents were indiscriminately arresting people perceived to be Latino without warrants or individualized flight-risk findings. In December 2025, Judge Beryl A. Howell issued a preliminary injunction barring warrantless civil immigration arrests in D.C. unless agents first determined the person was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.¹⁴ After plaintiffs showed agents were relying on a January 2026 Lyons memo instead of meeting the standard, Judge Howell granted a motion to enforce the injunction on May 7, 2026, explicitly barring use of the Lyons framework.¹⁵

Los Angeles

In Noem v. Perdomo, workers’ and immigrants’ rights groups, individual residents, and 22 cities challenged a June 2025 mass deportation operation plaintiffs described as an “illegal detention and deportation dragnet,” alleging stops were based on race, language, occupation, and neighborhood rather than reasonable suspicion.¹⁶ U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong found a “mountain of evidence” of constitutional violations and issued a restraining order in July 2025. The Supreme Court paused that order in September 2025 on a 6-3 vote, with Justice Kavanaugh writing that the “totality of the circumstances” could include the prevalence of undocumented workers in certain locations and Justice Sotomayor calling the decision a “grave misuse of our emergency docket.”¹⁷ In January 2026, Judge Frimpong tentatively denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding the violations were a “widespread problem” rather than isolated.¹⁸

North Carolina

Filed in February 2026, Aceituno v. USDHS was brought by five people, including three U.S. citizens and a U-Visa holder, who alleged federal agents in North Carolina employed “detain-first, justify-later” tactics without the probable cause federal law requires. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the policy is unlawful and a permanent injunction.¹⁹

Mahmoud Khalil’s Detention

The most closely watched individual case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident whose detention raises how far the government can go in removing lawful residents. Originally filed as Khalil v. Joyce, a district court ordered his release, but the Third Circuit reversed in January 2026, finding the district court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition.²⁰

In May 2026, the full Third Circuit denied rehearing 6 to 5, with five judges supporting it and three filing a dissent, then granted a stay of the mandate pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.²⁰ Meanwhile, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final removal order against Khalil in April 2026, and his attorneys filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit.²¹

The 75-Country Visa Ban

On January 21, 2026, the State Department suspended immigrant visa processing for applicants from 75 countries, citing concerns those nationals were likely to become “public charges.” The list ranges across Afghanistan, Haiti, Brazil, Nigeria, Colombia, and dozens of others.²²

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), African Communities Together, and 11 individual plaintiffs filed CLINIC v. Rubio in the Southern District of New York on February 2, 2026. The complaint alleges the ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing the government skipped required administrative procedures and is applying an “expansive definition of public charge” that sweeps in SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance not historically counted.²³ As of mid-2026, the case is at the summary judgment stage, with both sides having filed motions in March 2026.²⁴

The Immigrant Registration Requirement

In March 2025, DHS activated a dormant World War II–era statute requiring noncitizens 14 and older to register with the federal government, submit fingerprints and biometric data, and carry proof of registration at all times. Noncompliance carries fines up to $5,000 and possible imprisonment.²⁵ DHS estimated the rule affects 2.2 to 3.2 million people.²⁶

CHIRLA, United Farm Workers, CASA, and Make the Road New York filed CHIRLA v. DHS in the District of Columbia, arguing DHS skipped the required public comment period by calling the rule “procedural” rather than substantive. Plaintiffs also raised Fifth Amendment concerns about compelled information that could be used in deportation and criminal cases.²⁶ A preliminary injunction request was denied in April 2025, and the case is on appeal.²⁷

Chicago South Shore Raid Tort Claims

On September 30, 2025, roughly 300 federal agents descended on a South Shore, Chicago, apartment building using a Black Hawk helicopter, armored trucks, and unmarked vans in an operation called “Operation Midway Blitz.” More than three dozen residents were zip-tied and detained.²⁸

In May 2026, 18 residents (15 immigrants and two U.S. citizens, plus one tenant detained a week earlier) filed Federal Tort Claims Act claims against DHS and other federal agencies. The filings allege agents broke down doors without warrants, held adults and children at gunpoint, kicked and struck residents with rifles, and marched people outside in pajamas. One claimant said a dog bit him. A DHS-hired camera crew filmed the operation, with footage later used in agency social media. Each of the 17 principal claimants is seeking about $5 million in damages. DHS has denied the allegations, calling claims that children were zip-tied an “abject lie” and stating the operation was “performed in full compliance of the law.”²⁹ If the government denies the administrative claims or does not respond within six months, the residents can sue in federal court.

Other Active Cases to Watch

Harvard’s international students. In President and Fellows of Harvard College v. DHS, a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration from rescinding Harvard’s authorization to host international students. The administration’s appeal is pending in the First Circuit.³⁰
Sensitive locations. PCUN v. Mullin (formerly PCUN v. Noem) challenges the January 2025 revocation of guidance that had protected schools, hospitals, and houses of worship from immigration enforcement. In February 2026, plaintiffs including the National Education Association filed an emergency motion to stop ICE from “indiscriminately operating in and around schools, hospitals, and other community-serving locations.” The case is pending in the District of Oregon.³¹
Baltimore detention conditions. In D.N.N. v. Liggins, a Maryland federal court issued a preliminary injunction in March 2026 ordering ICE to end “unconstitutional and inhumane conditions” in Baltimore’s courthouse holding cells, where more than 3,200 people were held in the first ten months of 2025.³²
H-1B visa fee. Trump imposed a $100,000 fee on each H-1B petition in September 2025, up from a previous range of $960 to $7,595. In June 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts struck down the fee as a tax only Congress can impose, while a separate court in D.C. upheld it. The conflicting rulings are headed to their respective appeals courts.³³
Casework processing pause. In January 2026, 197 plaintiffs sued in Boston federal court over DHS’s suspension of immigration casework (asylum, work authorizations, green card processing, naturalization) for passport holders from 39 countries labeled “high-risk.” Plaintiffs argue the administration can bar entry but cannot freeze processing for people already living in the country.³⁴

The administration has maintained throughout that its policies are lawful exercises of executive authority to secure the border and protect the public, and officials expect appellate courts and the Supreme Court to ultimately uphold them.² With four major Supreme Court cases argued and undecided and the circuits openly split on mandatory detention, the next several months will decide how much of the current enforcement framework survives.

1
Justice Action Center. Immigration Litigation Tracker
2
Politico. 10K Rulings ICE Mandatory Detention Trump Analysis
3
BBC News. Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
4
Congressional Research Service. Immigration-Related Executive Actions and Legal Challenges
5
Last Month at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Reaches the Merits of Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. Barbara
6
SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Barbara
7
Brennan Center for Justice. W.M.M. v. Trump
8
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. W.M.M. v. Trump
9
New York Times. Trump Administration Lawsuits Tracker
10
SCOTUSblog. Court Appears Likely to Side With Trump Administration on Rights of Asylum Seekers
11
Oyez. Blanche v. Lau
12
SCOTUSblog. Immigration Is in the Spotlight at the Supreme Court
13
Democracy Now. ICE Jailed People Illegally
14
ACLU of the District of Columbia. Federal Court Requires Trump Comply Warrantless Arrests
15
ACLU of the District of Columbia. Escobar Molina v. Dept. of Homeland Security
16
PBS NewsHour. Supreme Court Ends Restrictions on LA Immigration Stops
17
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Allows Federal Officers to More Freely Make Immigration Stops in Los Angeles
18
Courthouse News Service. Feds Can’t Escape Suit Over Illegal ICE Stops Around LA
19
ACLU of North Carolina. Five Individuals Launch Class Action Lawsuit Over Warrantless Immigration Arrests in North Carolina
20
Center for Constitutional Rights. Khalil v. Trump
21
Courthouse News Service. Mahmoud Khalil Petition to Stay Mandate
22
National Immigration Law Center. Questions and Answers About the 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
23
The Legal Aid Society. CLINIC v. Rubio
24
Center for Constitutional Rights. CLINIC v. Rubio
25
Presidents’ Alliance. FAQs USCIS Registration Requirement
26
Courthouse News Service. Federal Judge Skeptical of National Registry for Undocumented Immigrants
27
American Immigration Council. CHIRLA v. DHS
28
CBS News Chicago. South Shore Apartment Building Military-Style Immigration Raid Tort Claim DHS
29
ProPublica. Chicago Immigration Raid ICE DHS FBI Federal Tort Claims
30
American Council on Education. Amicus Brief Appeals Court Harvard v. DHS
31
Justice Action Center. PCUN v. Noem Sensitive Locations
32
National Immigrant Justice Center. Federal Court Orders ICE End Inhumane Conditions Immigrants Baltimore
33
CalChamber. Federal Court Strikes Down $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee
34
Axios. Lawsuit Trump Immigration Pause