Statement on Birthright Citizenship Ruling by Attorneys Who Secured Injunction in Massachusetts Federal Court
Today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is limited to a procedural question—the scope of relief that district courts may grant in the birthright citizenship cases. The Supreme Court’s decision explicitly does not address the Trump Administration’s unprecedented arguments that would undermine well-settled law on who is entitled to birthright citizenship. On that question, all of the federal courts that have considered the question are unanimous: those born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens (subject only to rare exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats). That has been the law of the land for over 150 years and continues to be so today. Today’s Supreme Court ruling does nothing to upset that longstanding principle.
What today’s decision does is to set forth the circumstances under which district courts may issue universal injunctions (also known as nationwide injunctions), and then send back the birthright citizenship cases to the district courts for those courts to decide whether those circumstances are met here. In doing so, the Supreme Court specifically highlighted the argument made by Massachusetts and other States that a universal injunction is necessary in these cases because “[c]hildren often move across state lines or are born outside their parents’ State of residence…. Given the cross-border flow, … a patchwork injunction would prove unworkable.” The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to “move expeditiously” to consider this argument and rule on the appropriate scope of relief. This will be determined through further legal briefing and evidentiary hearings to clarify the scope of “complete relief” and the appropriateness of universal injunctions.
The Supreme Court also left open numerous other possibilities for a universal injunction, including through claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and through class actions.
Lawyers for Civil Rights will continue our fight in federal court to ensure that birthright citizenship—the law of the land—is protected for all who are entitled to it.
LCR’s case is Doe et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-10135, in which we represent an expectant mother and two immigrant organizations: La Colaborativa and the Brazilian Worker Center. The district court is considering the case alongside a parallel case brought by Massachusetts and a coalition of States, State of New Jersey et al. v. Trump et al., No. 25-10139.