Where does Trump’s birthright citizenship order currently stand?

Three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled to limit the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions in a case stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, a new nationwide injunction is blocking the order.

Confused? You’re not the only one.

The birthright citizenship battle has disoriented even some regular readers of legal news, in part because of how many lawsuits related to the order are ongoing and in part because of how challenging it was to assess the significance of the ruling in favor of the Trump administration when it was first released.

The battle began on Jan. 20, when Trump issued the birthright citizenship order just hours after being sworn in for his second term. Titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” the order hinges on a controversial interpretation of the 14th Amendment and instructs government departments and agencies to change their approach to issuing and accepting “documents recognizing United States citizenship” in order to prevent people whose parents were unlawfully or temporarily in the U.S. at the time of their birth from accessing the benefits of citizenship. The order was meant to apply to babies born 30 days after the order was issued and beyond.

The order was almost immediately challenged in multiple federal courts by immigrants’ rights advocates, pregnant women, states, and cities. Within a month, three district court judges had issued universal injunctions preventing the order from taking effect anywhere in the country, and a fourth had issued a more limited injunction that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing it against members of certain immigrants’ rights groups.

In mid-March, the Trump administration sought relief from the Supreme Court. But rather than argue in favor of the birthright citizenship order, it argued against the universal injunctions, asserting that the lower courts do not have authority to put policies on hold nationwide.

In April, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the birthright citizenship case, although it might be more accurate to say it agreed to hear the universal injunction case. The justices were considering whether and under what circumstances lower courts can block a policy from taking effect nationwide, not the constitutionality of the executive order.

The court heard arguments on May 15 and then released its decision on June 27. In Trump v. CASA, writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett determined that universal injunctions likely exceed the authority of the lower courts and are, in many cases, unnecessary to provide complete relief to those challenging a policy. The court’s opinion left open the possibility of nationwide class-based injunctions, as well as nationwide injunctions in cases challenging agency actions as illegal, as Mila Sohoni previously wrote for SCOTUSblog.

The decision was one of the most significant of the 2024-25 term, as well as a major victory for the Trump administration in its effort to implement its policy goals through executive action. But when it came to the birthright citizenship battle, in particular, it quickly became clear that the ruling wasn’t a slam dunk for federal officials, since it provided a road map to new, class-based injunctions that would also apply nationwide.

The same day the Supreme Court released its opinion, a new class-action lawsuit was filed against the birthright citizenship order, and on July 10, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante preliminarily certified babies who would be affected by the order as a class and issued a new, class-based nationwide injunction. “I’m the judge who wasn’t comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction. Class action is different,” Laplante said when hearing arguments in the lawsuit, referencing his injunction from February that applied only to the parties involved in that case, according to CNN.

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling cleared the way for the birthright citizenship order to go into effect on July 27 in states that had not challenged it, at the very least, that won’t happen as long as Laplante’s order is in place. And there may be additional injunctions coming soon, because lower courts are still in the process of updating their original injunctions in response to the ruling, which did not resolve whether the injunctions awarded to state challengers needed to be narrowed.

So, in the near term, the Supreme Court may be asked to again assess the use of injunctions in birthright citizenship cases. In the longer term, the justices are expected to answer whether the order violates the 14th Amendment. But when that will be remains anyone’s guess.

What is clear is that the legal battle over the birthright citizenship order is far from over.

Here’s a summary of what’s happened so far in timeline form:

Jan. 20, 2025: Trump issues birthright citizenship order

Jan. 20-21, 2025: Several immigrants’ rights advocacy groups, states, cities, and individual pregnant women file federal lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the executive order

Jan. 23, 2025: Birthright citizenship order is put on hold nationwide for two weeks with a temporary restraining order from Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Washington state

Feb. 5, 2025: First universal injunction putting the birthright citizenship order on hold indefinitely across the country is issued by U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland

Feb. 6, 2025: Second universal injunction is issued by Coughenour

Feb. 10, 2025: U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issues a more limited injunction in New Hampshire Indonesian Community v. Trump, which protects only the members of the groups involved in the suit

Feb. 13, 2025: Third universal injunction against the birthright citizenship order is issued by U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts

Feb. 19, 2025: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declines to partially block Coughenour’s universal injunction

Feb. 28, 2025: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit declines to partially block Boardman’s universal injunction

March 11, 2025: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declines to partially block Sorokin’s universal injunction

March 13, 2025: Trump administration comes to the Supreme Court requesting a partial block of the universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, arguing that lower courts do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions

April 17, 2025: Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments on the injunctions and consolidates the three cases

May 15, 2025: Supreme Court hears arguments on nationwide injunctions

June 27, 2025: Supreme Court releases opinion in CASA, which repudiates the concept of universal injunctions but does not address the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order. The opinion instructs the lower courts to narrow the existing injunctions, but leaves open the possibility of statewide injunctions for state challengers and nationwide injunctions in response to class action litigation

June 27, 2025: Within hours of the opinion’s release, the ACLU and several other civil rights organizations file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies and parents who would be affected if Trump’s birthright citizenship order took effect, and the plaintiffs in CASA file an amended complaint seeking a class-wide injunction

July 10, 2025: Laplante, the district judge who issued a limited injunction on Feb. 10, preliminarily certifies babies as a class in the new lawsuit and blocks the birthright citizenship order nationwide, but stays the new injunction for seven days to give the Trump administration time to appeal

July 27, 2025: In the absence of Laplante’s injunction, the birthright citizenship order would take effect on July 27 – 30 days after the Supreme Court’s opinion in CASA – in states not covered by preexisting injunctions